Daniel Maines, the Firearms Policy Coalition and the National Rifle Association filed a federal lawsuit on October 29 challenging Pennsylvania's exclusion of adults under 21 from its carry-license system. The complaint in Maines v. Bethel asks the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to block the age restriction. It is a request for judicial relief, not a ruling that opens license applications to younger adults.
The filed complaint, docketed as case 2:26-cv-08301, names Philadelphia Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel and Pennsylvania State Police Acting Commissioner George L. Bivens in their official capacities. The defendants have different responsibilities: Philadelphia handles its residents' carry-license applications, while State Police administer the statewide background-check system used in licensing. The plaintiffs want relief directed at both parts of that process.
The licensing barrier being challenged
The complaint quotes 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109(b), which allows an individual who is 21 or older to apply for a license to carry a firearm concealed or in a vehicle. Its central objection is that otherwise eligible adults ages 18 through 20 cannot obtain that license. This is a challenge to access to public-carry licensing, rather than a claim that firearm possession and licensed carry are interchangeable legal permissions.
Invalid Date
More Articles
Maines is described in the complaint as a Philadelphia County resident older than 18 but younger than 21, and a member of both organizational plaintiffs. He alleges that he is legally eligible to possess and acquire firearms, has never been charged with or convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, and meets the carry-license requirements apart from age. Those statements are his allegations in the lawsuit, not factual findings by the court.
He says he wants to carry a handgun concealed for self-defense, carry while traveling in a vehicle, and carry in and through Philadelphia. According to the complaint, he has refrained because of the challenged restrictions and would apply for a license if permitted. FPC and NRA also bring the action for their Pennsylvania-resident members ages 18 through 20 who may legally possess firearms but cannot obtain carry licenses.
The filing distinguishes ordinary open carry from the activities for which licensing generally matters. It describes Pennsylvania's restrictions on concealed and vehicle carry, along with the separate restriction on carrying in Philadelphia, while acknowledging statutory exemptions. The plaintiffs' practical argument is that an opportunity to carry openly elsewhere does not substitute for a license that would allow them to carry while traveling by car or within the city.
Local issuance and statewide screening
The complaint describes applications going to the sheriff in the applicant's county, or the chief of police for Philadelphia residents. It identifies Bethel's responsibilities as investigating eligibility, granting or denying applications, issuing licenses and revoking them when grounds arise. For Maines, the local official administering the application is therefore part of the alleged barrier, rather than simply an official who might later enforce a carry restriction.
State Police have a separate role. The complaint says they prescribe the uniform application and oversee the Pennsylvania Instant Check System, through which licensing officials check applicants before issuing licenses. The requested relief specifically addresses PICS administration. That distinction matters to the remedy the plaintiffs seek: they want both the age prohibition on issuance and a statewide screening obstacle to under-21 issuance removed.
The constitutional claim invokes the Second and Fourteenth Amendments through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs rely on the Supreme Court's Bruen decision and the Third Circuit's Lara decision, arguing that adults ages 18 through 20 fall within the people protected by the Second Amendment. They contend that Pennsylvania cannot justify the exclusion through historical firearm regulation. That is the plaintiffs' legal position; the complaint does not establish that the district court has accepted it.
Requested relief and unresolved proceedings
The prayer for relief asks for a declaration that the age exclusion is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against enforcing the prohibition on issuing licenses to adults ages 18 through 20. It separately seeks an injunction against administering PICS in a way that prevents those licenses. The plaintiffs also request litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
The reviewed document is the complaint, not an injunction or final judgment. It establishes neither a defendants' response nor a hearing date, and supplies no timetable for a decision. The next procedural developments to watch are the defendants' response and court action on the requested relief. Any eventual order will need to be read for its scope and operative terms before treating it as a change to licensing access.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
