By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: On Aug. 27, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced that their case, Madison Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, will be before the United States Supreme Court for a conference on September 29, 2025, to decide whether it will grant certiorari. Connecticut: Second Circuit
National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. Lamont, No. 23-1162; Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. v. Lamont, No. 23-1344: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunctions; Delaware: Bernie v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security:
Delaware’s general handgun ban on young adults has been struck down as unconstitutional, marking a significant victory for gun rights under the state’s constitution.
SCOTUS
Christopher Paris, Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police v. Second Amendment Foundation: Case No. 24-1329.
On Aug. 27, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced that its case, Madison Lara v. Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police, will be before the United States Supreme Court for a conference on September 29, 2025, to decide whether to grant certiorari.
The case seeks to vindicate the firearm carry rights of young adults by challenging the Pennsylvania state law, which prohibits them from carrying firearms during a declared state of emergency. Joining SAF in the case are the Firearms Policy Coalition and three individuals.
“We agree with the commonwealth that cert should be granted in this case, and this conference distribution is one step closer to that goal,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court steps in and puts to bed once and for all the question as to whether 18-20-year-olds are part of ‘the People’ who share the same Second Amendment rights as their older counterparts.”
Initially filed in 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has twice ruled in SAF’s favor. After the initial ruling, the commonwealth appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in turn, remanded the case back to the Third Circuit to reconsider in light of the Court’s ruling in Rahimi. The Third Circuit determined that Rahimi had changed nothing about their analysis and once again ruled for SAF and the plaintiffs. After being denied en banc review by the Third Circuit, the commonwealth has once again petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.
“If you’re an adult, then you should be able to fully exercise your Second Amendment rights, period,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Third Circuit has repeatedly determined that 18-20-year-olds are members of ‘the People,’ and we hope the Supreme Court will follow suit and find that adults under 21 have the same rights as other American adults.”
Courts of Appeals
Connecticut: Second Circuit
National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. Lamont, No. 23-1162; Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. v. Lamont, No. 23-1344
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunctions. Applying the framework established by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Second Circuit assumed, without deciding, that the Second Amendment presumptively protected the plaintiffs’ proposed conduct. The court concluded, however, that Connecticut’s laws are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weapons, as they impose targeted restrictions while preserving numerous alternatives for lawful self-defense. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not shown that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief in both cases.
Background: After the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut passed laws restricting the purchase and possession of certain “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” These laws were later expanded to cover additional firearms. People and organizations wanting to buy and own weapons restricted by these laws, such as AR-platform rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds, challenged them. They argued that the restrictions violated their Second Amendment rights. In the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, two cases were filed seeking preliminary injunctions to block enforcement of the laws. The court denied the motions, ruling that the plaintiffs did not show a sufficient chance of winning on their Second Amendment claims. The court explained that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the weapons and magazines regulated are commonly used for self-defense, and alternatively, that the state’s restrictions align with the country’s historical traditions of regulating dangerously powerful weapons. The plaintiffs appealed these decisions.
Smith emphasizes that the Bruen test requires governments to demonstrate a historical tradition of analogous regulations for modern firearm restrictions. The Second Circuit, he argues, ignores this by focusing on criminal misuse rather than the rights of law-abiding citizens. Smith points out that AR-15-style rifles are “in common use” today—millions are owned by Americans for self-defense, hunting, and sport—making them protected under the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision. Heller established that weapons “dangerous and unusual” could be banned, but commonplace arms like the AR-15 do not qualify.
A key flaw, he writes, is its cherry-picking of Bruen’s text. The full context of Bruen acknowledges that some modern problems lack perfect historical analogs but reaffirms the “in common use” standard from Heller and earlier cases like Miller (1939). By sidestepping this, the Second Circuit effectively rewrites precedent to favor gun control, which Smith sees as activist judging. He warns that this approach could erode core constitutional protections if left unchecked. Courts will reaffirm Americans’ right to bear commonly used arms.
State Court
Delaware:
Bernie v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security
Delaware’s general handgun ban on young adults has been declared unconstitutional, marking a major win for gun rights under the state’s constitution. Judge Reetta Green Street ruled that 18, 19, and 20-year-olds are entitled to “full-blown” rights to keep and bear arms for self-defense, based on Delaware’s Article 1, Section 20, a strong constitutional guarantee that exceeds the federal Second Amendment.
Background: The Delaware statute prohibited young adults (aged 18-20) from buying or possessing handguns, with certain exceptions. The lawsuit, Bernie v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, challenged this law by arguing it violated Article 1, Section 20 of Delaware’s constitution. The court agreed, declaring the law unconstitutional and unenforceable as applied to young adults.
Delaware’s Constitutional Protection
Delaware’s Article 1, Section 20 was adopted in 1987 to reaffirm the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. It states: “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home, and state, and for hunting and recreational use,” which is intentionally broader than the federal Second Amendment and protects rights beyond the home, including hunting and recreation. Delaware’s Supreme Court recognizes this right as independent from federal constitutional protections.
Judges Reasoning
Judge Reetta Green Street found that no other constitutional right in Delaware is withheld from 18-year-olds; attempts to analogize gun rights to privileges like alcohol or tobacco were rejected. She ruled that rights protected in the State Constitution cannot be treated like statutory privileges. She further noted that while categories like felons or the mentally ill may be barred from gun ownership after judicial process, the law had lumped young adults together without such adjudication. The state’s arguments about brain development and maturity among young adults were deemed constitutionally insufficient to justify a blanket prohibition.
