Third Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc in Case Recognizing Carry Rights of Young Adults

On February 26, the Third Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc in Lara v. Paris. That case involves a challenge to Pennsylvania’s law banning 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms during a state of emergency.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit held the ban unconstitutional, based on its finding that 18-to-20-years-olds are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. The court also determined that the original understanding of the Second Amendment—from when it was ratified in 1791—controls in a Second Amendment analysis.

The state then petitioned for rehearing en banc. If granted, the case would have been reconsidered by all the judges of the Third Circuit, rather than a three-judge panel. The court denied the petition, however, so the state remains barred from enforcing the ban and the panel decision remains binding precedent in the Third Circuit.

Lara provides strong support for NRA’s similar case, Young v. Ott, which challenges Pennsylvania’s prohibition on concealed carry by 18-to-20-year-olds. In the NRA’s landmark victory, NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the public carry of firearms by “the people.” Lara’s confirmation that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the people” underscores that banning adults under 21 from applying for a concealed carry license is unconstitutional.

Young v. Ott is currently before the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Supreme Court Skeptical About Mexico’s Attempt to Pass Buck to U.S. Gunmakers

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case in which the Mexican government is attempting to hold members of the U.S. gun industry financially liable for drug cartel violence south of the border. The case, Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, had originally been dismissed by the district court under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It was then revived by the First Circuit Court of Appeals under an exception to the PLCAA, and the industry defendants appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

Unsurprisingly, the justices appeared skeptical about the Mexican government’s self-serving claims that it’s the firearms industry in the U.S. that is the cause of Mexico’s woes, as opposed to, say, that government’s own corruption and mismanagement. But it was unclear if there was a majority theory about the most egregious flaw in Mexico’s case. The Supreme Court’s decision has potentially serious ramifications for the PLCAA, which since 2005 has protected the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits and has recently been under an all-out assault by the gun control movement.

California: Bill to Restrict Self Defense Rights Introduced in Legislature

The California legislative session is currently underway and anti-gun lawmakers are once again wrongly focusing on law-abiding citizens instead of focusing on the actual criminals. Assembly Bill 1333 (AB 1333), introduced late last week by Assemblymember Zbur, with the support of Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, is the latest example of a “criminals first” bill that would eliminate existing self-defense protections in California.

AB 1333, if passed, would restrict the self-defense rights of crime victims by eliminating California’s “no duty to retreat” protection for individuals that are forced to defend themselves. This would make it easier to prosecute victims of crime who use self-defense if they did not first attempt to retreat before protecting themselves. AB 1333 forces victims to accede to the demands of violent criminals or potentially face legal charges themselves. This only revictimizes the victim of a crime while doing nothing to deter criminals.

Want to reduce gun violence? Prosecute felons illegally possessing guns

"The data is very clear that the most likely person to commit violent crime with a gun is someone who has a criminal history of committing violence. In 2022, the US Sentencing Commission published data that “The vast majority of firearms offenders (88.8%) sentenced under §2K2.1 were prohibited from possessing a firearm,” and “Firearms offenders were more than twice as likely to have a prior conviction for a violent offense compared to all other offenders."

"If North Carolina is going to make real progress in lowering gun violence, we will need to prosecute and incarcerate violent felons illegally carrying firearms, as data shows these are the people most likely to commit future acts of violence with guns. Fighting the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry guns only ignores the problem."

Read the full article in The Carolina Journal by clicking on the button.

The FBI’s Missing Murders

In October, Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) broke the news that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had stealth-revised its reported violent crime data for 2022 to show a 4.5% increase, rather than the originally reported 2.1% decrease, for that year. Among other things, that adjustment added 1,699 more murders for 2022. Given that the vast majority of murder crimes are reported, Lott asks, “How do you miss 1,699 murders?”

Now, another source, Just Facts Daily (JFD), a “research institute dedicated to publishing facts about public policies,” has done a dive into homicide reporting and uncovered what appears to be an unusually large number of “homicides recorded on death certificates that are not reported as murders by Biden’s FBI.”

NYC Chaos Shows that Gun Controllers Aren’t Serious about Crime

For decades, NRA-ILA has pointed out that gun control advocates are disingenuous when it comes to public safety. Anti-gun politicians and the agencies and jurisdictions they control seek to encumber and disarm law-abiding individuals in any manner possible, while at the same time failing to vigorously enforce the law against dangerous criminals.

Consider a pair of recent stories from arguably the gun control capital of America, New York City.

On November 15, the New York Post ran a story with the wild headline, “Migrant with loaded AR-15, suspected Mexican cartel member freed from jail after alleged assault on NYPD cops.” According to the item, a 20-year-old “migrant… was hit with assault, gun possession, resisting arrest and trespassing charges after being nabbed urinating in a subway tunnel on Nov. 5 — while lugging the assault weapon in his backpack.” The report indicated that two police officers were injured trying to take the individual into custody.

An item from the New York Daily News stated that the firearm “was loaded with 25 live rounds and had a defaced serial number.” Further, the paper noted that the young suspect has two prior arrests.

According to the Post, the alleged criminal was released after posting $25,000 bail.

Federal District Court Strikes Down IL’s “Assault Weapon” and “Large-Capacity Magazine” Bans in NRA-Supported Case



The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois struck down provisions of the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) that prohibit “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” in an NRA-supported case, Barnett v. Raoul.In a thorough, 168-page opinion, the district court applied the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test for Second Amendment challenges, as interpreted by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Starting with the text, because the Supreme Court has stated that “common” arms are protected by the Second Amendment, but “dangerous and unusual” arms are not, the district court defined those terms. A “dangerous” arm, the court determined, is one “that a typical operator cannot reasonably control to neutralize discrete, identified aggressors.” An “unusual” arm is “an arm deploying an atypical method to neutralize an opponent in confrontation or that deploys a neutralizing agent that is caustic, incendiary, noxious, poisonous, or radioactive.” And a “common” arm encompasses “any bearable rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is capable of semiautomatic fire and is or has been available for purchase, possession, and usage by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, provided that it is not otherwise ‘dangerous and unusual.’” Applying these definitions, the court concluded that the banned “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” are common arms covered by the Second Amendment.

NRA Files Amicus Brief Arguing that Washington’s Magazine Ban Violates the Second Amendment



The NRA filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in a challenge to Washington’s prohibition on magazines that hold over 10 rounds.

The defendants in the case are a retail firearms dealer and its owner. In 2023, the defendants were issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) by the Washington State Office of the Attorney General due to suspicions that they were selling magazines that hold over 10 rounds, which are prohibited in Washington. The defendants petitioned for the CID to be set aside and a declaration that the magazine ban violates both the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 24 of the Washington Constitution.