For those unaware, the current federal firearm law prohibits adults between the ages of 18 and 20. It states explicitly in the Gun Control Act of 1968:
“…any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty‑one years of age…”
Of course, this law has been under fire by pro-2A activist groups since its inception. The argument is always that 18 is the legal voting age and the age at which an individual can volunteer for the armed forces, so why shouldn’t some of the same age not be able to own or possess a handgun (or other)?
Case Summary
To summarize, the plaintiffs, Caleb Reese and Emily Naquin, plus organizational plaintiffs, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and the Louisiana Shooting Association, are challenging 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) (unlawful acts) as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, arguing the Second Amendment should protects all legal adults (as in, those 18 and older). Fortunately, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. It held that the federal prohibition is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, using the two-step process established by Bruen. Those questions include: does the plain text of the Second Amendment cover this, and if yes, does the challenged restriction align with the nation’s historical tradition?
The court held that 18-to 20-year-olds are part of the “people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected, including the right to acquire arms. The court then rejected the traditionally accepted belief that young adults should be “excluded” due to their maturity or civic status, as the Second Amendment does not include age limits. The ATF chose not to appeal the case. The case has now returned to the district court for entry of judgment and an injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
A Concerning Turn
At this juncture, the Federal Government entered an alternative proposal that “would provide only declaratory relief, and that is limited to the named individual plaintiffs, not one of whom is still under the age of 21.” This case has been ongoing since 2020, meaning that all named plaintiffs are now over the age of 20. SAF founder and Executive Vice President, Alan M. Gottlieb, explains:
“SAF’s victory in this case rightly applies to all of our members, and that is precisely what this brief makes clear. The government cannot continue to trounce on the Second Amendment rights of young adults by trying to avoid the practical effectiveness of an injunction mandated by a federal circuit court.”
SAF argues that this position is contrary to well-established law. SAF sued on behalf of its members, and the relief SAF obtained in the Fifth Circuit benefits those members. This injunction should protect all SAF members and members of the other organizational plaintiffs, as that has been the tradition (consider the pistol brace injunction for FPC members).
Zooming Out
The idea that the federal government is attempting to persuade the courts to limit injunctions to named plaintiffs only is concerning. And it’s not the first time. The same thing is happening in Elite Precision Customs vs. ATF. This breaks tradition and should not be tolerated. Hopefully, the judges will see past this veiled attempt to constrict the opinions of higher courts for what it is—an attack on our rights.
We’ll keep you posted as developments occur.
For more Outdoor HUB news, click here.
Sources:
Trending Products
