A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday, January 30, 2025, declaring the decades-old ban on federally licensed firearms dealers selling handguns to individuals aged 18 to 20 unconstitutional. This landmark decision was issued by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, which unanimously pointed to significant questions raised by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gun rights.
The three-judge panel, led by Judge Edith Jones—nominated by President Ronald Reagan—articulated its opinion clearly: "the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected." This ruling not only reversed the district court’s previous confirmation of the restriction but also highlighted inconsistencies between the existing federal law and the historical tradition of firearm regulation established by the Supreme Court.
The 1968 legislation, part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, initially prohibited federally licensed dealers from selling handguns to those under 21 years of age. The ruling arose from a legal challenge led by gun rights groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition, alongside individuals aged 18 to 20 who aimed to purchase handguns. Brandon Combs, the President of the Firearms Policy Coalition, lauded the decision, stating, "Today’s ruling is yet another pivotal FPC win against an immoral and unconstitutional age-based gun ban. We look forward to restoring the Second Amendment rights of all peaceable adults throughout the United States."
This ruling featuring the 5th Circuit Court signifies the shift within appellate courts as jurisdictions navigate the new standard set by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which mandated gun laws to align with “the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The Court's previous ruling indicated rigorous scrutiny of existing laws on the basis of historical acceptance, asserting, "the federal government has presented scant evidence... during the founding era were restricted... to similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban."
Judge Jones emphasized the historical inclusion of 18 to 20 years olds within militia service and the evolution of firearm use, arguing against the government’s stance: “There are no age or maturity restrictions in the plain text of the Amendment, as there are other constitutional provisions.” She stressed how traditionally, younger adults were often expected to serve and bear arms as part of their civic duty. The past ruling from the 5th Circuit, which upheld the age restriction back in 2012, stood on different legal precedent before the modern interpretation was firmly established.
Despite the court's ruling, advocates for gun control voiced strong opposition. Brady: United Against Gun Violence released statements asserting the risks involved with loosening restrictions on gun sales to younger individuals. "This dangerous decision will put more guns in the hands of teenagers—endangering lives," they commented, indicating plans to contest the ruling.
While the government previously defended the ban amid concerns of youthful susceptibility to gun violence, the legal arguments presented in the latter court case underlined the prevailing criticisms against such prohibitory measures. Historical evidence, particularly from the Militia Act of 1792, where state militias demanded free able-bodied young men bear arms, appears to bolster the court's interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Experts postulate the ruling’s broader implications, potentially intensifying debates around age restrictions within the Second Amendment discussions. The court’s latest interpretation challenges legal frameworks established over decades, indicating possible future national court interventions. Recent cases have echoed similar tones, including reviews by the Eighth Circuit and litigation around state laws setting age limits for firearm purchases.
Even as the 5th Circuit’s ruling may pave the way for more individuals aged 18 to 20 to access handguns, the practicalities of enforcement remain uncertain. Professor Adam Winkler from UCLA Law notes the ruling didn't impose immediate changes, indicating possible delays before its impact is felt nationwide. "While the 5th Circuit struck down the age limit, it did not issue an injunction barring its enforcement. Instead, it sent the case with instructions back down to the trial court," he explained, signaling the next legal steps could mold the ruling's scope.
The Southern U.S. continues to engage with weapon legislation, and observers are keeping close tabs on how the 5th Circuit’s opinion might affect both state and federal policies, especially considering the changing attitudes toward firearm ownership within young adult demographics. The decision marks another chapter as courts navigate the often-contentious issues revolving around the Second Amendment and its interpretations.