341 A.3d 144
Pa. Super. Ct.2025Background
- Kareem Mohammed Williams, Jr., age 19, was charged with carrying a firearm without a license in Pennsylvania after a traffic stop in 2023, where he admitted possession of a loaded handgun.
- Williams could not legally obtain a concealed carry permit because he was under 21, as required by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6109.
- Williams stipulated to the material facts of his possession but challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's licensing statutes (§§ 6106 and 6109) under both the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions.
- After a bench trial, Williams was convicted and sentenced to 2.5-5 years imprisonment; he appealed, raising constitutional challenges and procedural objections to the trial court's handling of his motion to dismiss.
- The trial court relied on prior case law and Supreme Court precedent (including Bruen and Rahimi) to deny his motion and conviction was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Williams denied due process by the trial court's handling of his motion to dismiss? | Court erred by not taking evidence/argument, improperly relying on unrelated case | Rule 577 allows ruling based on briefing alone; court cited relevant prior decisions | No error; trial court acted within discretion |
| Did the Commonwealth fail to meet its burden under Bruen regarding historical tradition? | Commonwealth did not supply historical analogues justifying age-based restriction | Williams waived this argument on appeal by failing to preserve it; Rule 577 governs process | Williams waived; no relief granted |
| Are §§ 6106 & 6109 unconstitutional as applied to 18-20 year olds under Second Amendment? | No historical tradition justifying denial of public carry to 18-20 year olds | Founding/19th c. law treated under-21s as minors with restrictions; analogues exist for restricting minors | Statutes constitutional as applied; conviction upheld |
| Does Pennsylvania's Constitution provide greater protection than U.S. Constitution? | Art. 1, Sec. 21 offers broader arms-bearing right | PA and federal provisions offer same protection; recent PA case law supports equivalence | No greater protection under PA Constitution |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognized individual right to keep and bear arms under Second Amendment)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2022) (clarified test for Second Amendment challenges, emphasizing historical tradition)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (U.S. 2024) (expanded on Bruen history-and-tradition framework, noting limits to Second Amendment rights)
- Commonwealth v. McIntyre, 333 A.3d 417 (Pa. Super. 2025) (described high burden on challengers of statutes' constitutionality)
- Commonwealth v. Farmer, 329 A.3d 449 (Pa. Super. 2024) (standard of review for constitutional challenges to criminal statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Mead, 326 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2024) (PA arms-bearing provision interpreted in step with Second Amendment)
- Barris v. Stroud Township, 310 A.3d 175 (Pa. 2024) (PA Supreme Court's application of Bruen/history-tradition test)