The Pennsylvania Superior Court has just vacated a Philadelphia man’s criminal conviction for openly carrying a handgun — and in doing so, handed Second Amendment advocates a victory that reaches far beyond one defendant’s case. In Commonwealth v. Sumpter, 2025 PA Super 124, decided June 23, 2025, a two-judge majority held that 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108 — Philadelphia’s unique open-carry licensing requirement — violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to Riyaadh Sumpter. The ruling is another brick in a wall of precedent that is slowly dismantling the fiction that cities can declare themselves Second Amendment exemption zones.
The Facts Are Exactly as Simple as the Court Said
Sumpter was walking on a Philadelphia street with the handle of a handgun visibly protruding from his waistband. He told police he was carrying for self-defense because of shootings in the area. He was detained, arrested, and convicted under § 6108 — a statute that applies only in Philadelphia, the Commonwealth’s sole “city of the first class.” Everywhere else in Pennsylvania, adults 18 and older may openly carry a firearm without any license. The moment Sumpter crossed the city line, he would have been doing nothing illegal. That geographic anomaly is what doomed the prosecution.
Equal Protection and the Fundamental Right to Bear Arms
The majority opinion, authored by Judge Victor P. Stabile and joined by President Judge Lazarus, applied strict scrutiny — the most demanding constitutional standard — because the right to keep and bear arms outside the home is a fundamental right. Under strict scrutiny, the Commonwealth needed to demonstrate a compelling interest and show that § 6108 was narrowly tailored to serve it. It could not.
The core of the ruling is this: two Pennsylvania residents, identically situated — same gun, same manner of carry, same purpose — are treated as a criminal in one city and a law-abiding citizen everywhere else in the state. That disparity, the court held, does not pass constitutional muster.
This equal protection angle is genuinely powerful. It doesn’t require the court to strike the statute facially. It only requires the court to look at what happened to this person under this law and ask whether the government can justify that differential treatment. The answer was no.
Bruen and Heller Close the Exits
The Commonwealth tried two escape routes, and the court blocked both with language straight from the Supreme Court of the United States.
First, Pennsylvania argued that Philadelphia’s elevated gun violence justified the licensing requirement. The court rejected this by quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), directly:
“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many Amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, but the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”
Gun violence statistics are not a constitutional trump card. The balancing of the Second Amendment’s benefits and costs was done by the Founders when they ratified it. Courts are not empowered to redo that calculus every time a city claims a public-safety crisis.
Second, the Commonwealth argued that Philadelphia, as a major urban center, should have greater authority to restrict firearms. The court answered with New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), where Justice Thomas wrote that New York’s approach “would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment” — an outcome the Court flatly rejected. As the Sumpter majority put it: “There is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a sensitive place simply because it is crowded.” That logic applies equally to Philadelphia.
Precedent Compounds Interest
Judge Lane filed a dissent, but what matters for the Second Amendment community is that the majority opinion is now precedent within Pennsylvania — and instructive precedent for courts across the country. Sumpter demonstrates exactly how the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and Bruen continue to bear fruit years after they were decided.
My view has always been that every case we win is both a victory in itself and a tool for the next fight. The way a court wins matters as much as who wins. Here, the Sumpter majority built a layered record: geographic discrimination triggers strict scrutiny, gun-violence data cannot justify rights restrictions, and urban density is not a constitutional basis for Second Amendment carve-outs. Each of those holdings is now available for defense attorneys, civil litigants, and constitutional advocates to deploy anywhere a jurisdiction imposes geographically inconsistent burdens on the right to bear arms.
Sumpter’s conviction has been vacated. His right to keep and bear arms has been vindicated. And the precedent he leaves behind is a weapon we get to use in the next battle — and the one after that.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.