FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Friday, October 31, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. STONEWALL
APPEAL NO.: C-240607
TRIAL NO.: B-230570-A
KEY WORDS: SECOND AMENDMENT — CONCEALED CARRY — IMPROPER HANDLING OF FIREARMS IN A MOTOR VEHICLE
SUMMARY: The statute prohibiting defendant from carrying a concealed handgun until he reaches 21 years of age did not violate the Second Amendment because defendant is permitted to openly carry a firearm.
The statute prohibiting defendant from carrying a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle until he reaches 21 years of age did not violate the Second Amendment where regulating individuals aged 18 to 20 is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of restricting the rights of those who were deemed unable to responsibly bear arms. [But see DISSENT: The statutes prohibiting defendant, a 19-year-old, from carrying a concealed handgun and transporting a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle until he reaches 21 years of age violate the Second Amendment as applied to defendant where the State failed to carry its burden to show that regulating a young adult’s access to firearms while travelling and ability to carry a concealed weapon fall within our Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation when the State presented no evidence to support the “why” underlying the challenged firearm regulations, which effectively prevented the identification of a similarly relevant historical analogue.]
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; NESTOR, J., CONCURS and KINSLEY, P.J., DISSENTS.
CAPTION: STATE V. HENNY
APPEAL NO.: C-250188
TRIAL NO.: B-2405473
KEY WORDS: COMMUNITY-CONTROL SANCTION
SUMMARY: The trial court abused its discretion when it prohibited the defendant from working in an establishment with firearms where the restriction had no relationship to the vandalism conviction and was not reasonably related to rehabilitation.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; CROUSE and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.