TALLAHASSEE – A significant legal battle is set to take place next month as the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears challenges against Florida's law limiting gun purchases for individuals under 21. This law, which has created heated debates across the state, was enacted after the tragic mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018, where 17 lives were lost.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has launched what is expected to be one of the most contentious legal challenges yet against the legislation. Their arguments will be heard in Atlanta on October 22, where the court will decide on its constitutionality. The original federal district judge, alongside a three-judge panel of the appeals court, had previously upheld the law, but now the entire appeals court is stepping in to reconsider the issue.
According to reports, the NRA argues the age restriction clashes with the Second Amendment rights, particularly referencing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where justices stated gun laws must align with the historical traditions of firearm regulation. John Parker Sweeney, the NRA's attorney, emphasized this point, stating, "This law is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment’s text protects young adults’ right to purchase a firearm, and the state has not proven the ban aligns with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation."
On the flip side, attorneys representing Florida contend the law is consistent with customary practices. They pointed out, per Florida’s legal brief, “Florida’s law restricting the purchase, but not possession or use, of firearms by those under 21 is consistent with the principles… At the (nation’s) founding, individuals under 21 were considered lacking… to enter contracts, which at the time were necessary to purchase firearms.” This historical perspective emphasizes the belief held by many lawmakers about the maturity and judgment of young adults.
The age restriction was quickly integrated by Republican lawmakers, along with then-Governor Rick Scott, after the Parkland tragedy. While federal law already prohibited those under 21 from acquiring handguns, the addition of long guns surged debates over Second Amendment rights and youth safety.
Although the appeals court is just beginning to navigate this complex legal maze, prior to the court's involvement, the state House tried to push bills aimed at lowering the minimum age for purchasing long guns from 21 to 18, efforts which were stifled when the Senate refused to act on the measures.
Compounding this legal tension, the backdrop of gun laws is being shaped by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. These opinions are at the forefront of the NRA and state lawyers’ discussions as they wrangle over how the Supreme Court’s rulings should affect the challenging Miami case.
Meanwhile, civil rights advocates are pursuing their own legal battles, pointing out systemic disenfranchisement under Florida law. Recently filed lawsuits challenge the precise match voter policy, which mandates voter names on registrations match exactly with identification documents like driver’s licenses or social security cards. Activists argue this policy disproportionately affects people of color, particularly within counties like Miami-Dade and Broward, where large Black populations reside.
Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of the Advancement Project and leading voice behind the lawsuit, underscored the significance of the issue, stating, “A typo should not stand in the way of a citizen’s right to vote.” The lawsuit brings to light alarming statistics: since 2018, more than 43,000 valid voter registration candidates were rejected solely due to this exact match requirement, which they argue disenfranchises many voters.
The civil rights lawsuit highlights the intersectionality of gun laws and voter rights, complicingly weaving through issues of access, representation, and safety. Browne Dianis pointed out the stark racial disparities, noting Black voters account for approximately 31% of applications denied due to incorrect identification numbers, whereas their representation constitutes only 14% of registered voters.
Florida Rising Together, the plaintiff group behind the lawsuit, emerged with the goal of amplifying voter rights advocacy. Moné Holder, their Chief Political & Advocacy Director, remarked on the broader narrative of voter suppression tactics, tying together the exact match policies and other restrictive measures like limiting ballot drop boxes and mail-in voting as additional barriers for Black and Brown voters.
The court hearings scheduled for next month are positioned to be pivotal, not just for Florida but as part of the larger national conversation on gun rights and voter access. The outcomes may redefine the boundaries of constitutional rights and require both legal and legislative reevaluation.
These cases underline the urgent dialogues surrounding the Second Amendment, youth safety, and voter enfranchisement, driving home the reality of citizens facing legal barriers on multiple fronts. Residents across the state are watching closely as these arguments come to light, knowing their implications could shift the political and social landscapes of Florida for years to come.
