Bivens v SAF (Paris v Lara) - Under-21 carry ban

[Euler]

The case has been filed at the US Supreme Court, but it is still awaiting a petition, so there isn't a (real) docket yet.

Pennsylvania bans people under 21 from carrying firearms in public. Madison Lara (and others) sued the Pennsylvania State Police, in the person of its director, Christopher Paris, to enjoin the ban.

The Federal District Court of Western Pennsylvania ruled for the government. Lara et al. appealed. CA3 ruled for Lara et al.

CA3 said:

... The words "the people" in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18-to-20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group. Accordingly, we will reverse and remand.
...

Paris (PA) petitioned for an en banc rehearing, but was denied. PA is now appealing to the Supreme Court.

PA's argument is the now familiar one that people under 21 aren't people, therefore they don't have constitutionally protected rights, like 2A.

The deadline to file a petition is June 25, but Paris has asked Alito to extend the deadline to July 25. (shadow docket)

Edited June 30, 2026 at 08:41 PM by Euler
Paris → Bivens; Lara → SAF

[TRussell]

The Supreme court needs to put an end to this for once and for all. These young people serve in our armed forces only to be told they are not mature enough to carry in self defense. We are a disgrace. 

[ragsbo]

Yet the socialist liberal commies want 16 year olds to vote, even younger ones to be able to "change" sexes and do permanent damage to themselves, let under age girls have abortions with out parents knowing, etc etc etc etc.

 

Hypocrites and liars!

 

AND they gave me a M16 A1 rifle at the age of 17 and taught me to use it! SO which is it?????

Edited May 4, 2024 at 03:33 AM by ragsbo

[TRussell]

On 5/3/2024 at 10:32 PM, ragsbo said:

Yet the socialist liberal commies want 16 year olds to vote, even younger ones to be able to "change" sexes and do permanent damage to themselves, let under age girls have abortions with out parents knowing, etc etc etc etc.

 

Hypocrites and liars!

 

AND they gave me a M16 A1 rifle at the age of 17 and taught me to use it! SO which is it?????

Yeah, exactly right. It is no longer your Grandpa and Dad's Democrat party

Edited May 4, 2024 at 01:35 PM by TRussell
Error

[spanishjames]

On 5/3/2024 at 9:14 PM, TRussell said:

The Supreme court needs to put an end to this for once and for all. These young people serve in our armed forces only to be told they are not mature enough to carry in self defense. We are a disgrace. 

They're old enough to be pawns for the elite, but not mature enough to care and make decisions for themselves. 

[TomKoz]

Hmm 🤔.  Just throwing this out there.

Do not those UNDER 18 years of age have “Constitutional” Rights?

 

Are “Constitutional” Rights only to those 18 years of age and older?

 

Freedom of speech?  Freedom of religion?

Freedom of assembly? Etc. Etc.

 

Why - “Constitutionally” must citizens (note Citizens) wait until age 18 or older for 2A Rights?

 

I consider myself to be a strict Constitutionalist.

[Quiet Observer]

On 5/3/2024 at 10:32 PM, ragsbo said:

Yet the socialist liberal commies want 16 year olds to vote, even younger ones to be able to "change" sexes and do permanent damage to themselves, let under age girls have abortions with out parents knowing, etc etc etc etc.

 

Hypocrites and liars!

 

AND they gave me a M16 A1 rifle at the age of 17 and taught me to use it! SO which is it?????

Was not your access to the weapon limited, especially outside of a war zone? In the U.S. could you keep it in your barracks, or room? Could you take it into town or across country? 

[John Q Public]

Ever hear of the National Guard?

[mauserme]

On 5/5/2024 at 10:55 AM, Quiet Observer said:

Was not your access to the weapon limited, especially outside of a war zone? In the U.S. could you keep it in your barracks, or room? Could you take it into town or across country? 

 

I believe that is a practice of a modern era, far removed from the traditions of the founding era that NYSRPA v Bruen tells us to follow.

 

 

 

 

[davel501]

On 5/5/2024 at 11:31 AM, mauserme said:

 

I believe that is a practice of a modern era, far removed from the traditions of the founding era that NYSRPA v Bruen tells us to follow.

 

 

 

 

 

It's a red herring. The constitution does not apply on military facilities. 

[ragsbo]

On 5/5/2024 at 10:55 AM, Quiet Observer said:

Was not your access to the weapon limited, especially outside of a war zone? In the U.S. could you keep it in your barracks, or room? Could you take it into town or across country? 

The point is that the liberal socialists commies are saying folks under 18 are not mature enough to have guns but those as young as 16 are mature enough to vote, to have abortions, to make major decisions about permanent body modifications etc etc etc. Hypocrites and liars. Don't try to change the subject with a troll response

[Silhouette]

Trying to bring this back a bit... There appears to be a lot of old common law (colonial era and preceding) from England regarding the age of majority (traditionally 21) as well as simultaneous different ages for military service (sometimes as young as 12) and ages of consent (also sometimes as young as 12) (info sourced via wikipedia -- better sources or corrections are welcome).  The UK and US now have the age of majority at 18. I am not sure from where the idea that all rights in our legal system must attach at the same moment comes.  There are currently plenty examples including drinking, voting, smoking, age of consent etc that attach at different times, and the constitution specifies ages for senators and presidents explicitly.  All that said, there may be every reason to argue that certain rights like self-defense should be tied to others like national defense and military service -- especially given the wording in the (non-limiting) preamble to the second amendment.  

 

 

[davel501]

On 5/6/2024 at 6:36 AM, Silhouette said:

Trying to bring this back a bit... There appears to be a lot of old common law (colonial era and preceding) from England regarding the age of majority (traditionally 21) as well as simultaneous different ages for military service (sometimes as young as 12) and ages of consent (also sometimes as young as 12) (info sourced via wikipedia -- better sources or corrections are welcome).  The UK and US now have the age of majority at 18. I am not sure from where the idea that all rights in our legal system must attach at the same moment comes.  There are currently plenty examples including drinking, voting, smoking, age of consent etc that attach at different times, and the constitution specifies ages for senators and presidents explicitly.  All that said, there may be every reason to argue that certain rights like self-defense should be tied to others like national defense and military service -- especially given the wording in the (non-limiting) preamble to the second amendment.  

 

 

 

Can you point to the spot in the constitution where it says your right to smoke shall not be infringed? 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 5/6/2024 at 9:15 AM, davel501 said:

 

Can you point to the spot in the constitution where it says your right to smoke shall not be infringed? 

The constitution guarantee's your rights (to protect you from the Government). 

Like abortion, like driving, like drinking, there is no guarantee'd right. 

[Euler]

On May 3, 2024 at 08:42 PM CDT, Euler said:→

...
The deadline to file a petition is June 25, but Paris has asked Alito to extend the deadline to July 25. ...

On May 6, Alito granted the extension.

[mab22]

So what are human beings called under the age of 21, if they are not considered people?
 

[Euler]

Everytown calls people under 21 "children," so that it can say "guns kill hundreds of children every day" (i.e., 18 to 20-year-old gang members). The anti-2A crowd hasn't applied a general word for people who aren't people, like unperson or nonperson or anything similar. It's an interesting balancing act, trying to argue that people aren't people without applying a general label and looking like WW II-era Nazis, especially because it includes their own children who suddenly become people at 21 and felons (convicted or not, see Rahimi, e.g.) who stay not-people forevermore.

[Euler]

On July 25, Paris filed the petition, so the case got a real docket number.

[Euler]

On August 29, Lara filed a response.

[Euler]

Mark Smith argues that the Supreme Court should deny certiorari, because:

1. The 3rd Circuit already said 18-20 year-olds have 2A rights; and
2. It's a challenge to a state law, whereas Reese v ATF (CA5) is a challenge to 18 USC 922(b)(1) and 18 USC 922(c)(1), which constitute the federal ban on handgun sales to 18-20 year-olds, although it'll probably take another year to get to the Supreme Court.

[Euler]

On September 17, the Court scheduled the petition for conference on October 11.

[mikew]

Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to continue to enforce bar on gun possession for those under 21

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/supreme-court-allows-pennsylvania-to-continue-to-enforce-bar-on-gun-possession-for-those-under-21/

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sent a challenge to a Pennsylvania law barring people 18- to 20-years-old from carrying guns back to the lower courts for another look in light of last term’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, in which the justices attempted to provide guidance for courts reviewing Second Amendment challenges to restrictions on gun rights. The announcement came on a list of orders from the justices’ private conference last week.

 

The justices did not add any new cases to their docket for the 2024-25 term.

 

In Paris v. Lara, Pennsylvania had appealed in a challenge to a state law that effectively bars 18- to 20-year-olds from openly carrying a gun when Pennsylvania has declared a state of emergency. In a decision issued in June 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit barred the state from enforcing the law, reasoning that the words “the people” in the Second Amendment “presumptively encompass all Americans, including 18-to-20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group.”

 

Pennsylvania’s attorney general, Michelle Henry, told the justices that the Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Rahimi had “abrogated the Third Circuit’s analysis.” In Rahimi, the court upheld a federal law that bans anyone who is the subject of a domestic-violence restraining order from possessing a gun. In reaching that holding, Henry noted, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that even if the modern regulation being challenged “does not precisely match” laws restricting gun rights in early English or U.S. history, “it may still be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.” Henry urged the justices to send the case back so that the 3rd Circuit could reconsider it in the wake of the court’s decision in Rahimi, and on Tuesday the justices did just that.

 

 

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-pennsylvania-minors-77026634672c25ca42aca47941b55072

 

 

[Euler]

I'm not sure how Rahimi applies to this case. The order from the Supreme Court doesn't say specifically.

The circuit court had ruled in favor of 18-year-olds being able to carry. I don't think there are any founding-era laws "analogous enough" to change that.

[MrTriple]

I think this is the correct take. Plus why deny a case you're not prepared to take when it's easier to GVR in order to keep the case alive for a future term?

[davel501]

Good case to put limits on Rahimi too.

[Euler]

It's back.

On January 13, a 3-judge panel once again decided in favor Lara for under-21 carry.

On February 26, the 3rd Circuit denied en banc review.

On April 16, Paris (PA) filed for an extension to the deadline to petition for certiorari from May 27 to July 11. (shadow docket)

On April 21, Alito granted an extension to petition from May 27 to June 26.

Edited April 23, 2025 at 04:16 AM by Euler

[crufflesmuth]

The ban on under 21's makes no sense legally. Culturally, we have set the expectation handguns are dangerous in the hands of that crowd: 18-20. It looks like they want to undo Rahimi? 

[Euler]

On June 26, Paris met the deadline to file a petition.

On June 30, the Court assigned a docket number.

[Euler]

On July 18, SAF requested an extension to respond from July 30 to August 13.

[Euler]

On July 21, the Court granted the extension to August 13.