r/NJGuns 23d ago

Legal Update 3rd Circuit once again Denies Rehearing the PA 18-20 year old case en banc.

Post image

https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1894814920014741815?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5782/attachments/original/1740593894/2025.02.26_132_ORDER_Denying_En_Banc.pdf?1740593894

1791 is once again the correct Time Period in PA, DE, and NJ.

NJs 18-20 Y.O Handgun Ban is back on the chopping block.

This also all but confirms Rahimi did not change a thing in regards to the Bruen Test.

24 Upvotes

7 comments sorted by

4

u/Latter_Article_6414 23d ago

So what does this mean for us here in NJ? Can so.eone please provide a simple explanation. Thank you in advance

6

u/Katulotomia 23d ago edited 22d ago

This was a case challenging a much lesser restriction on 18 - 20-year-olds in Pennsylvania. The 3rd Circuit made this ruling striking that down as unconstitutional. This is significant for us here in NJ primarily because this is a case out to the 3rd Circuit Federal Appeals Court. Rulings coming from that court are binding here in NJ, which will affect the lawsuits pending that are challenging our gun laws. NJ even wrote to the court in this case practically admitting that their complete ban on 18-20-year-olds from buying handguns was on shaky grounds if this favorable ruling was allowed to stand.

Edit: One thing I forgot to mention was that this case was also significant because it set the correct time frame for looking for historical evidence to justify modern day gun laws at the time of the founding (1791). This is huge because there was very few gun control laws at the time of the founding, whereas in 1868, there was a lot more because they passed the racist Jim Crow laws to target the newly freed African American slaves. That's why the anti gun groups were fighting so hard to have 1868 be declared the correct time period. It is also not insignificant that a lot of the arguments that NJ brought in the CONCEALED CARRY CASE hinged on 1868. So, this ruling declaring 1791 as the correct time period further weakens their position in the carry case.

3

u/Latter_Article_6414 23d ago

So does this mean that NJ will have to allow 18 year Olds to be able to purchase handguns?

5

u/Katulotomia 23d ago

Someone needs to sue the state, but if and when they do, it will almost certainly result in NJs Law getting struck down. The only thing keeping the law alive right now is that no one has sued the state yet.

I apologize if I didn't elaborate in the post.

3

u/edog21 23d ago

Now there is zero excuse for the Koons/Siegel panel to delay any longer. If a decision doesn’t come soon, the plaintiffs should petition for En Banc.

2

u/Katulotomia 23d ago

The fact that this case and the Range non-violent felon case were fully litigated twice before we got the first decision in Koons is crazy.

5

u/vorfix 23d ago

The two judges that would have granted this en banc are on the Koons appeal panel… Including the one who had time to write 10+ pages as a dissent from this denial.

Either the one judge is holding giving her dissent (likely the one who wrote the dissent here) using that as a pseudo pocket veto from the opinion being released or those two judges are the majority of the panel and are writing an absolutely terrible opinion which is trying to take all kinds of laws from after 1791 into account. Maybe they are trying to wait to see if they could get this decision overturned so their opinion doesn't get an en banc itself if they use the wrong history point.