Another 2nd Amendment Case with a Pennsylvania Twist
On July 24 the U.S. District Court issued a ruling setting aside some of Pennsylvania’s gun regulations. Judge Christopher Conner begins his decision noting that the Commonwealth is pretty much an open carry state. But the state does have laws limiting that right where the weapon is in a vehicle or there is a state of emergency.
Three individuals and two 2nd Amendment interest groups challenged those regulations, passed in 1995. 18 Pa.C.S. 6106 provides that you must have a license to carry a gun in a vehicle or during a declared state of emergency. It also forbids issuance of a license to any person convicted of a felony. 18 Pa. C.S. 6109(e)(1). Judge Conner ruled that the regulations forbidding unlicensed weapons in vehicles or during emergencies violated the 2nd Amendment but the regulation barring felons from securing a license to possess was valid.
Of the three individual plaintiffs, one was convicted in 1990 of illegal possession of a handgun. Another had a 1997 conviction for corruption of a minor and the third violated Maryland’s laws prohibiting tinted windows and making a false statement to government officials. Maryland takes a “dim” view of tinted windows (pun intended) and lying to your government. That defendant could have been sentenced to five years in prison. Between 2017 and 2019 the three individual plaintiffs applied for a permit to carry. The state police in Pennsylvania denied their requests, giving rise to the case.
This case was brought in April 2021 when there was a state of emergency in effect because of the Covid-19 pandemic. That triggered the emergency limits on gun licensing. The Commonwealth argued that the removal of the emergency made the issue moot. That didn’t go far as it shouldn’t. While an emergency premised upon invasion and insurrection might signal a need for restrictions on guns, it’s tough to contend that a virus should trigger restrictions on gun possession.
Judge Conner’s decision walks through the Supreme Court history on gun regulations starting with the finding in U.S. v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) that the asserted right to transport sawed off shot guns from one state to another was not consistent with the concept of a well regulated militia. But in 2008 the Supreme Court had a second bite at this issue in a case where the District of Columbia tried to prevent its residents from having guns in their homes. District of Columbia v. Heller held that citizens had a right to possess weapons for self-defense. 554 U.S. 570. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment was a right worthy of protection against state regulation through the 14th Amendment and Chicago’s prohibitions again individual possession was set aside. 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Finally, we arrived at New York State Rife & Pistol Assn v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) which held that any regulation of gun ownership must be consistent with regulations dating to the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted. New York’s attempt to broadly regulate gun ownership did not meet the historical standard the Supreme Court saw as necessary. If a “distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem” cannot be identified, or if there is evidence that the public dealt with the problem “through materially different means,” then the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
The clear message here is that the war over the right to bear arms will be fought largely in the courts. Even gun control advocates may have some difficulty contending that a fellow driving in another state with tinted windows should forfeit his rights to possess a gun. Unfortunately, these judicial “gunfights” will do little to bring peace to our streets and classrooms.