General Firearm Articles - USA Carry

TALLAHASSEE, FL — A newly introduced bill in the Florida House of Representatives, HB 759, aims to roll back the minimum age requirement for purchasing firearms in the state from 21 to 18 years old. The bill, filed by Rep. Michelle Salzman (R-1) on February 19, 2025, is currently making its way through legislative committees and is expected to be a key issue in the ongoing debate over Second Amendment rights in Florida.

The proposed legislation amends Section 790.065 of the Florida Statutes, specifically lowering the minimum age for purchasing firearms to 18. This change would reverse part of the 2018 law that raised the minimum age to 21 in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting. The bill also maintains the prohibition on licensed firearm dealers selling or transferring guns to anyone under 18, meaning that those underage restrictions remain intact.

Notably, the bill removes an exception that previously allowed certain groups—such as law enforcement officers, correctional officers, and active-duty military personnel—to purchase rifles and shotguns under the age of 21. Under HB 759, all law-abiding citizens 18 and older would regain the right to purchase firearms.

If passed, the bill would take effect July 1, 2025.

Governor Ron DeSantis addressed the issue during his State of the State address on March 4, 2025, urging lawmakers to strengthen Florida’s gun rights laws. In his speech, DeSantis criticized Florida for having “some of the weaker laws in the country” compared to other conservative states. He specifically pointed to red flag laws and restrictions on young adults purchasing firearms as areas needing reform.

“We need to be a strong Second Amendment state… Look back in instances where legislation may have been passed in recent years, such as shifting the burden on red flag laws, such as taking away the rights of young adults to be able to purchase firearms… Let’s get some positive reform done.”

The bill was referred to the Criminal Justice Subcommittee and the Judiciary Committee, where it received a favorable vote on March 12, 2025. It is now awaiting further debate in the Judiciary Committee before heading to a potential floor vote in the Florida House.

If the bill passes both chambers of the Florida Legislature and is signed by the governor, it would reinstate the pre-2018 age limit for purchasing firearms. Florida would then join several other states that allow legal adults (18+) to buy rifles, shotguns, and handguns without additional age-based restrictions.

HB 759 is a critical step toward restoring the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding young adults in Florida. Under current law, 18- to 20-year-olds—legal adults—are unjustly barred from purchasing firearms, despite the fact that they can vote, serve in the military, sign contracts, and be held fully responsible under the law. This bill seeks to correct that unconstitutional overreach and ensure that all Floridians enjoy their fundamental right to self-defense.

Opponents will predictably claim that restricting gun rights for young adults somehow makes the public safer. However, punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is both unjust and ineffective. The vast majority of violent crime is committed by those who already disregard the law, not responsible gun owners. Stripping an entire group of adults of their right to bear arms does nothing to stop crime—it only makes it harder for them to protect themselves.

As HB 759 moves forward, it represents an important victory for gun rights advocates and a necessary correction to the misguided policies that have infringed on the rights of young adults for years. Florida has the opportunity to reaffirm its status as a strong pro-Second Amendment state, and this legislation is a major step in the right direction.

Read the original story: Florida Bill HB 759 Seeks to Lower Minimum Firearm Purchase Age to 18

SANTA FE, NM — A controversial new bill, Senate Bill 279 (SB 279), threatens to upend the rights of law-abiding gun owners across New Mexico by enacting some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in the nation. Introduced by a group of Democratic lawmakers, the Gas-Operated Semiautomatic Firearms Exclusion Act would ban the sale, transfer, and possession of nearly all semiautomatic firearms that use gas-operated cycling systems—which includes many of the most common rifles and handguns used for self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting.

If passed, this legislation would:

Failure to comply with these new restrictions could turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals overnight, with violations carrying misdemeanor or felony penalties.

Proponents of the bill argue that restricting access to semiautomatic firearms will reduce violent crime. However, the bill is a thinly veiled attempt to strip New Mexicans of their Second Amendment rights while doing nothing to address the state’s real crime problems.

State Representative Stefani Lord (R-District 22) condemned the bill as “the worst gun grab in the country,”pointing out that it bans firearms already owned by thousands of New Mexicans. She warned that the bill’s vague language could criminalize responsible gun owners and lead to selective enforcement.

Walter Bracken, owner of BMC Tactical in Albuquerque, also criticized the bill, highlighting its sweeping scope. “They want to ban anything gas-operated, including classic firearms like the M1 Carbine and Mini-14—guns that have been in civilian hands for decades. This bill is pure overreach.”

Walter Bracken, owner of @BMCTactical, explains the nonsensical SB 279 language that aims to criminalize a majority of commonly used self defense firearms.

SB 279 is in Senate Judiciary today!

Tune in AND contact your legislator via https://t.co/inarp3FJm1#nmpol #2A pic.twitter.com/PqRek5rMZt

While SB 279’s sponsors claim it does not ban previously owned firearms outright, it forces existing owners to register their guns with the state by January 1, 2026—a move that gun rights groups argue is just the first step toward confiscation.

Under the bill’s provisions:

This is a clear gun registry, something historically used in other countries as a prelude to outright confiscation.

New Mexico currently ranks as one of the most dangerous states in the country, with Albuquerque’s violent crime rate soaring over recent years. Yet, instead of cracking down on criminals, SB 279 targets law-abiding citizens who responsibly own and use firearms for protection.

Law enforcement agencies already struggle to enforce existing gun laws against violent offenders. Instead of addressing gang violence, drug trafficking, and repeat offenders, this bill diverts resources to tracking and policing legal gun owners.

SB 279 is currently in the New Mexico Senate Finance Committee, and gun owners still have time to voice their opposition. If this bill becomes law, it will set a dangerous precedent not just for New Mexico, but for the rest of the country.

The fight for gun rights in New Mexico is far from over, but SB 279 is a serious threat that cannot be ignored. Every New Mexican who values their right to self-defense, hunting, and shooting sports should stand up against this radical and unconstitutional legislation before it’s too late.

Read the original story: New Mexico’s SB 279 Seeks to Ban Most Semiautomatic Rifles, Handguns, and Standard Magazines

NEWINGTON, NH — A federal lawsuit alleging that a SIG SAUER P320 pistol discharged without a trigger pull has been officially dismissed after the plaintiff, a Puerto Rico police officer, admitted in court that his firearm was not defective. The case, Berrios v. SIG SAUER, was dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico following the officer’s admission that the P320 cannot fire without a trigger pull.

This marks the 18th case dismissed against SIG SAUER concerning claims of unintended discharges of the P320. Over the past three years of litigation, SIG SAUER has consistently defended the safety and reliability of its striker-fired pistol. The company presented detailed scientific evidence demonstrating that the P320 does not fire without the trigger being pulled and contains no manufacturing defects.

SIG SAUER’s Senior Director of Communications, Samantha Piatt, responded to the case’s dismissal, stating:

“We are extremely pleased with the result in this case, which further demonstrates what so many in our industry already know: the P320 cannot fire without the trigger being pulled and is the gold standard for safety, innovation, engineering, and quality, among striker-fired pistols.”

Piatt also emphasized SIG SAUER’s commitment to addressing what the company describes as “malicious and misleading attacks” against the P320, while continuing to support the millions of civilian, law enforcement, and military users of the pistol worldwide.

While SIG SAUER has successfully defended multiple lawsuits regarding the P320, controversy around alleged unintended discharges persists. As previously reported on USACarry.com, some users have claimed their P320s discharged without a trigger pull, leading to ongoing debates within the firearms community. However, SIG SAUER maintains that all verified cases involve an external force on the trigger, mechanical interference, or user error.

The P320 has been rigorously tested and adopted by various military and law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. military as the M17/M18 service pistol. It remains one of the most widely used and trusted striker-fired handguns on the market.

For more details on the P320, SIG SAUER has directed users to visit P320Truth.com, where they provide information addressing concerns and legal cases surrounding the pistol.

Read the original story: Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against SIG SAUER as Officer Admits P320 Did Not Fire on Its Own

TUCSON, AZ — A 19-year-old man has been arrested and charged after a toddler accidentally shot himself with an unsecured handgun earlier this month.

According to AZ Family, deputies responded to a reported medical emergency on March 3 at a home near Hartman and Linda Vista. Upon arrival, they found a 2-year-old child suffering from a gunshot wound to the hand. A neighbor transported the child to a local hospital for treatment.

Investigators determined that 19-year-old Jeremiah Vaughn had placed a loaded handgun on the end of a bed, allegedly unaware that the child had picked it up. The victim, identified as Vaughn’s half-brother, was able to access the firearm before the negligent discharge occurred.

Vaughn was arrested and charged with domestic violence-child abuse. During his initial court appearance, a judge set his bond at $2,500, despite the state’s request for $50,000, citing what prosecutors called “the height of negligence.” Vaughn is scheduled to appear in court again on March 14. The Arizona Department of Child Safety has been contacted and is involved in the investigation.

This marks at least the third accidental shooting involving a child in the Tucson area this year.

This incident is a tragic yet avoidable reminder of the importance of responsible firearm storage. Leaving a loaded handgun within reach of a child is not just negligent—it can have life-altering consequences. Firearms should always be stored in a locked safe or secured with a trigger lock when not in use. Simple precautions, such as using biometric safes or placing guns out of reach, can prevent accidents like this from happening.

While many gun owners understand these safety measures as common sense, incidents like this prove that not everyone follows them. If you own a firearm, ensure that it is stored safely and responsibly. A moment of carelessness can lead to devastating consequences.

Read the original story: Man Arrested After Toddler Shoots Himself with Handgun Left on Bed

MEMPHIS, TN — A man suffered a grazing gunshot wound early Monday morning in what police are calling an accidental discharge but should be called a negligent discharge caused by a dog. However, several details surrounding the incident raise questions about how the shooting actually occurred.

As reported by Action News 5, officers responded to a home on Whitney Avenue around 3:50 a.m. for a reported accidental injury. The victim told police he was lying in bed with a friend when his dog jumped onto the bed, got its paw stuck in the trigger guard of a firearm, and discharged a round. The bullet grazed the man’s left thigh.

His friend then left the scene, reportedly taking the firearm with her. When police arrived, they discovered spent shell casings on the front room floor. However, the report did not clarify whether there was a bed in that room, raising questions about where exactly the shooting took place. Additionally, the presence of multiple casings suggests that more than one round may have been fired.

The victim was transported to the hospital in non-critical condition. Police have not indicated whether they plan to investigate further.

While negligent discharges involving pets have been documented in rare cases, proper firearm safety practices could have prevented this incident. A loaded firearm should always be secured in a holster or locked in a safe when not in use. Leaving a gun unattended on a bed presents a significant risk, whether from a pet, a child, or even an adult unfamiliar with proper handling. This case also raises questions about whether someone else may have negligently fired the weapon rather than the dog. Regardless, this incident serves as a reminder that responsible firearm storage is critical to preventing accidents.

Read the original story: Memphis Man Grazed by Bullet After Dog Jumps on Bed Where He and Friend Were Lying and Allegedly Fires Gun

NEWINGTON, NH — SIG Sauer has issued a strong rebuttal against ongoing lawsuits and media reports alleging that its popular P320 pistol can fire without a trigger pull. In a March 7, 2025, press release titled The Truth About the P320, the company firmly stated that the firearm “CANNOT, under any circumstances, discharge without a trigger pull – that is a fact.”

This statement comes in response to years of litigation and accusations that the P320 is prone to unintended discharges. SIG Sauer asserts that these claims are being driven by individuals seeking financial gain or to push an anti-gun agenda, rather than being based on legitimate safety concerns.

The SIG Sauer P320 was introduced in 2014 and gained widespread adoption, particularly after being selected as the U.S. Army’s Modular Handgun System in 2017, under the designation M17 and M18. However, not long after its release, reports surfaced of the pistol discharging when dropped or jarred—without the trigger being pulled. This led to a voluntary upgrade program in 2017, in which SIG offered modifications to the pistol’s trigger mechanism and striker assembly to prevent potential issues.

Despite this upgrade, lawsuits continued, with plaintiffs claiming the P320 discharged unexpectedly in holsters or while being handled normally. Some lawsuits have been dismissed, and in others, expert testimony has reportedly supported SIG Sauer’s assertion that the pistol will not fire unless the trigger is deliberately actuated.

SIG Sauer maintains that all claims against the P320 have no factual basis, citing extensive testing and evaluations conducted by military and law enforcement agencies worldwide. According to the company, “lawsuits claiming that the P320 is capable of firing without the trigger being pulled have been dismissed in courtrooms around the country,” and expert witnesses for plaintiffs have acknowledged that the pistol will not fire unless the trigger is fully engaged.

In the press release, SIG Sauer directly calls out media outlets and attorneys pushing these lawsuits, accusing them of “clickbait farming, engagement hacking grifters” and warning that similar legal tactics could be used against other gun manufacturers in the future.

The P320 remains one of SIG Sauer’s most popular handguns, widely used by civilians, law enforcement, and military personnel. While some lawsuits are still active, SIG’s latest statement suggests that the company is taking a more aggressive approach in countering what it sees as misinformation.

For gun owners, this controversy underscores the importance of proper firearm handling, holster selection, and adherence to safety practices. Regardless of manufacturer claims, safe gun handling remains the best way to prevent unintended discharges.

This situation also serves as a reminder of the legal challenges firearm manufacturers face in an era of increased scrutiny and litigation. Whether SIG Sauer’s firm stance will put an end to the controversy remains to be seen.

Read the original story: SIG Sauer Defends P320 Amid Controversy Over Alleged Unintended Discharges

TERRE HAUTE, IN — A negligent discharge incident at Top Guns, a well-known shooting range and gun store in Indiana, left one man injured earlier this week. The incident, which occurred before the man had even begun shooting, serves as an important reminder of the risks posed by improper holster selection and handling.

According to Steve Ellis, the owner of Top Guns, the customer was preparing to shoot and was in the process of holstering his firearm when the negligent discharge occurred. The man was using a leather holster with a floppy retention strap—a design that has been known to create safety issues if the strap enters the trigger guard during reholstering. In this case, the strap made its way into the trigger guard and pressed against the trigger as the man pushed his handgun into place, causing the gun to discharge.

The round struck the man in the leg, entering just above his knee and exiting near his ankle. Staff at Top Guns responded immediately, providing critical first aid by applying tourniquets to control the bleeding. Emergency responders arrived shortly afterward, and the injured man was transported to a local hospital where he was listed in stable condition. Ellis credited his staff’s quick and calm response with saving the man’s life.

This incident highlights the importance of selecting a quality holster and paying attention to your surroundings when holstering a firearm. A proper holster should fully cover the trigger once the gun is secured, but it’s equally important for the user to ensure nothing—like a jacket drawstring, loose clothing, or an unsecured retention strap—can enter the trigger guard during reholstering. Holsters with floppy leather retention straps, like the one involved in this incident, pose a particular risk because the strap can easily fold into the holster’s opening and press against the trigger before the firearm is fully seated. This combination of holster design and user oversight makes reholstering a critical moment that requires care and attention.

Additionally, Ellis emphasized the value of visually confirming the holster is clear before inserting a firearm. While some shooters believe reholstering should be done by feel alone, the reality is that during non-stressful situations, such as at a range or during training, there is no reason not to look your firearm into the holster. This simple habit can prevent unintentional discharges caused by obstructions.

Another helpful tip shared by Ellis is to adjust your body position when holstering to minimize the risk of a round striking your body if an unintentional discharge occurs. For those carrying at the 3 or 4 o’clock position, this could mean angling the strong-side leg inward to move it out of the line of fire. If you carry in the appendix position, you can achieve a similar effect by pushing your hips forward to create a safer angle while holstering. This simple adjustment is an effective way to follow one of the core firearm safety rules: keeping the firearm pointed in a safe direction at all times.

This case serves as an unfortunate but valuable reminder that firearm safety doesn’t end when the trigger finger leaves the trigger. Reholstering is a critical moment that deserves just as much attention to safety as firing the gun itself. By selecting quality holsters, being deliberate when reholstering, and maintaining muzzle awareness, shooters can greatly reduce their risk of experiencing a similar incident.

Read the original story: Negligent Discharge at Indiana Range Serves as Reminder of Holster Safety

There are many accessories you can add to your EDC gun these days. Optics like red dots, night sights, extended safety levers, weapon-mounted lights (WML), and lasers are common and in wide use. They all provide a direct benefit when you are in a stressful shooting situation. Optics and lasers enable you to acquire your target faster, night sights and WMLs improve low-light performance, and extended controls make it easier to manipulate the safety when under stress or if your hands are wet. Pistol compensators are a less common accessory, although they are quickly gaining popularity. Full-size compensators have been used on competition guns for years, but new, more compact models are now being offered for concealed carry guns. The question is, are they worth it?

A pistol compensator is a device that attaches to the muzzle of a handgun to mitigate recoil and help control muzzle rise, or flip. Unlike a muzzle brake, which diverts gas out the sides of the device to counteract the rearward force of recoil, a compensator diverts gases upward instead of out the muzzle, compensating for the upward jump of the muzzle as the gun is fired. This helps the shooter to fire quicker, more accurate follow-up shots. They are easy to install, simply threading onto the end of a threaded barrel, and sometimes incorporating a set screw to prevent them from backing off the barrel. There are also some pistol compensators, like the Strike Industries Mass Driver Compensator, that do not require a threaded barrel.

Pistol compensators gained tremendous popularity for competition shooting starting in the 1980s. Competitors shooting compensated pistols had a significant advantage in speed and accuracy over those without compensated pistols. Competitors weren’t concerned about concealability, so the added bulk and weight of a compensator were inconsequential, but their use on an EDC handgun was impractical since their bulk made concealability more difficult and required special holsters. In addition, they added significant length to a handgun which could interfere with a fast draw and make reholstering more difficult. That didn’t matter to competitors since most used custom holsters. However, as compensators grew in general popularity, manufacturers began offering compensators designed specifically for concealed carry, like the Strike Micro Threaded Comp which only adds .64” to the barrel length. Their compact size enhances concealability and makes it possible to carry them in a normal open-ended holster.

Pistol compensators offer some definite advantages, the most obvious of which is the reduction in recoil and muzzle flip. This helps keep your sights on target for faster and more accurate follow-up shots. It also makes handguns more comfortable to shoot for people who are recoil averse. Compensators reportedly reduce recoil anywhere from 8% to 14%, depending on the gun and ammunition. They are also very easy to install.

Another advantage of a compensator’s reduction in recoil is the ability to use +P and even +P+ ammunition without a noticeable increase in recoil from standard ammunition. Since +P ammo produces about a 10% increase in recoil, shooting it through a compensated handgun feels like shooting standard ammo without a compensator.

Finally, there is the comparison between porting a barrel and installing a compensator. Porting your barrel requires a permanent alteration of your gun, installing a compensator does not. In some cases, porting can also result in a reduction in muzzle velocity. While this is not a problem when shooting competition, it is not desirable in a defensive encounter.

Like so many things in life, pistol compensators have their downside. The most obvious is the additional length, usually between .6” and 2”, and weight compensators add to your handgun. This makes a gun more difficult to conceal and more tiresome to carry. Fortunately, the newer compensators designed for concealed carry alleviate much of this problem. Nevertheless, a pocket pistol would possibly no longer fit in your pocket. 

Compensators also make your gun louder to shoot because the compensator ports direct some of the muzzle blast up instead of out the muzzle and away from you. They also vent gases straight up instead of away from you. That can make indoor range time unpleasant and even cause a headache and nausea during prolonged indoor shooting sessions. 

Compensators can also affect retention shooting situations because when you have your gun tucked back close to your body instead of pressed out at arm’s length to prevent it from being grabbed by a bad guy, your upper body and face are right above the point where the compensator is directing muzzle blast and gases. This makes practice more difficult and could even be a negative factor in a real-world situation. 

Finally, there is the additional cost involved. The cost of a compensator can run anywhere from $50 to $200. If your gun does not already have a threaded barrel, that could be another $75 to $200, depending on your gun, and the threaded barrel you choose.

Just as with any other accessory, such as a red dot, a pistol compensator is not a replacement for training and proper gun handling techniques. If you are experienced and your skills are up to par, a compensator might be a good addition to your EDC to complement your abilities. On the other hand, buying one to ‘compensate’ for poor skills or lack of practice is laziness and could come back to bite you when the chips are down. 

Is putting a pistol compensator on your EDC gun worthwhile? Yes, they can be beneficial, but it pays to give the disadvantages some thought before laying your money down, and then finding out that you do not like it. It is also essential to remember that no accessory, no matter how good, will ever be a substitute for training and practice.

Read the original story: Are Pistol Compensators Worthwhile?

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) has reintroduced the Second Amendment for Every Registrable Voter (SAFER) Act, H.R. 1643, which seeks to lower the minimum age for purchasing a handgun from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) from 21 to 18. The bill, filed in the 119th Congress, aims to align federal law with constitutional principles by allowing legal adults to exercise their Second Amendment rights without restriction based on age.

The SAFER Voter Act would amend Section 922(b)(1) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, removing the restriction that prevents individuals under 21 from purchasing a handgun through an FFL. Currently, federal law allows 18-year-olds to vote, serve in the military, and be legally responsible for contracts and other obligations, yet prohibits them from purchasing a handgun from licensed dealers.

Rep. Massie, a strong advocate for gun rights, emphasized the inconsistencies in current federal law, particularly regarding young adults’ ability to defend themselves.

“Why should a 20-year-old mom be denied the right to defend herself?” Massie asked when announcing the bill.

While individuals aged 18-20 can legally own a handgun in most states—acquiring one through private sales or as a gift—federal law restricts them from purchasing one from an FFL. The SAFER Voter Act seeks to remove this limitation.

Gun rights advocates argue that the current restriction is unconstitutional and unjustified, as the Second Amendment does not specify age limits. Additionally, multiple court cases have challenged age-based gun laws, with some rulings questioning their constitutionality under the Bruen decision’s precedent.

If passed, H.R. 1643 would provide 18- to 20-year-olds with the same access to legally purchasing handguns from FFLs as those 21 and older. However, individual state laws would still apply, meaning some states could maintain higher age restrictions.

The SAFER Voter Act highlights a key issue in self-defense rights—ensuring that all law-abiding adults have equal access to firearms for protection. Young adults, particularly college students, single parents, and those living independently, often face the same risks as older adults but are currently restricted in their ability to legally purchase a handgun.

As this bill moves through the legislative process, it is expected to face opposition from gun control advocates but will likely receive strong support from Second Amendment organizations and conservative lawmakers.

We will continue to track H.R. 1643 and provide updates on its progress in Congress.

Read the original story: Bill to Lower Handgun Purchase Age to 18 Reintroduced by Rep. Thomas Massie

PHILADELPHIA, PA — In a major victory for Second Amendment advocates, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied a petition for en banc rehearing in Lara v. Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police, allowing its previous ruling to stand. The decision reaffirms that Pennsylvania’s restriction on 18-to-20-year-olds carrying concealed firearms is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Despite efforts from 19 state attorneys general to challenge the ruling, the Third Circuit declined to revisit the case, solidifying the precedent that law-abiding young adults cannot be arbitrarily denied their right to carry firearms for self-defense.

The Lara case challenged Pennsylvania’s law, which generally restricted adults under 21 from obtaining concealed carry permits and imposed additional prohibitions during declared states of emergency. The Third Circuit had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, recognizing that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the People” protected by the Second Amendment.

With the court refusing to rehear the case, that ruling remains in effect, securing the right of young adults to carry concealed firearms for self-defense. This outcome also calls into question similar restrictions in other states, potentially paving the way for broader challenges against age-based firearm bans.

While a majority of the circuit judges declined to revisit the decision, a group of dissenting judges—led by Judge Cheryl Ann Krause—argued that the court should have reconsidered the case. In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Krause contended that Pennsylvania’s law had historical precedent, citing various 19th-century regulations.

However, the court’s decision to deny the rehearing aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), which requires modern gun laws to be consistent with historical traditions at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791. The original panel had already determined that there was no Founding-era tradition of restricting 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms, making Pennsylvania’s law unconstitutional.

This ruling could have nationwide implications, as many states still impose similar age-based restrictions on firearm carry. The Third Circuit’s decision could serve as a blueprint for challenging other laws that unjustly restrict the Second Amendment rights of legal adults.

Furthermore, this ruling calls into question federal restrictions that prohibit individuals under 21 from purchasing handguns from licensed dealers. The logic applied in Lara—that young adults cannot be arbitrarily excluded from their constitutional rights—may set the stage for future legal challenges at the federal level.

With the Third Circuit denying en banc review, the only remaining option for Pennsylvania is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the high court’s recent emphasis on historical tradition in gun cases—including Bruen and United States v. Rahimi (2024)—Pennsylvania would face an uphill battle in trying to justify its restrictions.

If the Supreme Court declines to take up the case, the Third Circuit’s ruling will stand, further reinforcing that 18-to-20-year-olds cannot be denied their right to carry firearms for self-defense.

The denial of en banc review is a win for Second Amendment rights and a significant step toward restoring full constitutional protections for young adults. This case highlights the shifting legal landscape following Bruen, as courts continue to strike down unconstitutional gun restrictions.

Gun owners—especially those in states with similar age-based carry bans—should watch for potential challenges in their own jurisdictions. This ruling could signal the beginning of a broader movement to restore full Second Amendment rights to all law-abiding adults, regardless of age.

Read the original story: Pennsylvania’s 21+ Concealed Carry Age Restriction Stays Overturned as Third Circuit Denies Rehearing