In a split published decision Monday from the intermediate-level appeals court, Judge Victor P. Stabile that the state statute criminalizing the open possession of a weapon without a license in Philadelphia, which was used to convict Riyaadh Sumpter, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the guarantee of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
Judge Stabile wrote that the state statute was "unconstitutional on an equal protection basis as applied to the Appellant" and called the ability to bear arms publicly "a fundamental right" established by the Constitution.
Sumpter said the law preventing him from openly carrying a weapon without a license impinged on his constitutional right to be armed, and the majority found that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions supported that argument.
Judge Stabile wrote that in the United States v. Rahimi in 2024, and in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n Inc. v. Bruen in 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed "that the right involved in this case is fundamental." Both cases addressed the right to bear arms outside the home, according to the Superior Court.
Precedents concerning similar matters "foreclose any argument that the Commonwealth's stated interest — providing law enforcement with additional tools to combat crime — is sufficiently compelling to support an impingement" on such a fundamental right, the court wrote.
Sumpter, whose gun was visible in his waistband when he was stopped in Philadelphia, told authorities he was carrying the weapon for protection, the court said. In all other parts of the state, carrying a weapon openly is permitted by persons over age 18, according to the opinion.
Citing a passage from Bruen, Judge Stabile wrote that the opinion in that case "undercuts any argument that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to greater restriction in large metropolitan areas than it is elsewhere."
Sumpter was sentenced to one year of probation for his actions, but his attorney, Leonard Sosnov of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, said that under the law, he could have been sentenced to up to five years in prison.
"Everywhere else in Pennsylvania people aren't committing a crime when they open carry. There is no legitimate basis for the people in Philadelphia to have reduced rights," Sosnov said Tuesday.
He added that "in areas with a lot of violence, people have the same rights as they do elsewhere."
Representatives for the state did not immediately respond to requests for comments on Tuesday.
Anyone who conceals a weapon in Pennsylvania or carries it in a car must be 21 and have a license — barring certain exceptions. The court said it was not addressing that aspect of state statute, since it was not being challenged, but noted that the special restrictions in place in Philadelphia "subject violators in Philadelphia to two convictions" for nonlicensed concealed carry.
For example, concealing an unlicensed weapon would be one charge, but in Philadelphia, an additional charge would apply, according to the court.
In her , Judge Timika Lane wrote that she would uphold Sumpter's sentence, relying on existing state precedent. She said that she thought the majority wrongly equated the rights the Supreme Court decisions in Bruen and Rahimi established "with the right Sumpter seeks to assert here."
She said that "neither decision held that states are barred from imposing any licensing requirement" when it came to the right to bear arms. In Bruen, the court "emphasized that its decision was limited" to states whose licensing language used the phrase "may issue," and had discretion to deny applicants even when all statutory criteria were satisfied, as in New York. She said this differed from "'shall issue' licensing schemes, including that of Pennsylvania."
"Bruen's holding was narrow. It did not strike down a state law criminalizing the open carrying of a firearm without a license. Instead, Bruen addressed a state licensing authority's 'discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria,'" and found such a licensing scheme was unconstitutional, she wrote.
Judge Lane wrote that Sumpter hadn't even applied for a license and so his case was very different from anything decided in Bruen. Since Judge Lane found that the issues in Sumpter's case weren't informed by new Supreme Court decisions, she said she would have followed Pennsylvania precedent, which had upheld the constitutionality of the state statute.
She then would have dismissed the other challenges Sumpter raised regarding licensing, finding he had no standing to bring them, since he hadn't tried to apply for a license.
Judges Tamika Lane, Victor P. Stabile and President Judge Anne E. Lazarus sat on the panel for the Superior Court.
Riyadh Sumpter is represented by Leonard Sosnov of the Defender Association of Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania is represented by Lawrence Jonathan Goode and Grady John Gervino of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office.
The case is Sumpter v. Commonwealth, case number MC-51-CR-0009763-2022, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
--Editing by Emily Kokoll.
Update: This story has been updated to include additional information about the ruling.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
