The Northern District of West Virginia federal district court judge declared that it is unlawful to prohibit individuals between the ages of 18 and 20 from purchasing handguns from federal firearms licenses (FFLs).
Two West Virginians, Steven Brown and Benjamin Weekley, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL) filed the case Brown v. the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in September 2022. The two males wish to purchase pistols and handgun ammo from FFLs; they are both under 21 years old.
Currently, it is illegal for anybody under 21 to purchase handguns from FFLs. While there isn’t a federal statute that prevents 18 to 20-year-olds from purchasing firearms, current restrictions prevent anyone younger than 21 from completing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to obtain a pistol.
Following the Bruen ruling by the Supreme Court, “means-end scrutiny” was discontinued. The government was no longer able to impose Second Amendment restrictions using the justification of “public safety.” When determining whether a measure is constitutional, the government may only go to the Second Amendment’s original language, customs, and history.
First, Judge Thomas S. Kleeh discussed the definition of “the people.” He developed the idea that “the people” are all law-abiding citizens who are at least 18 years old by using historical allusions. He said the founders did not specify an age for gun rights, but they did list particular ages in other parts of the U.S. Constitution, like the age to become president. He thinks the Second Amendment would have included a higher age restriction if the authors had desired it.
“For example, minimum age requirements are constitutionally imposed on membership in the House of Representatives (25 years of age), the United States Senate (30 years age) and, of course, the office of President of the United States (35 years of age),” Judge kleeh stated. “Clearly, the authors of the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights contemplated age restrictions during their drafting work. The Second Amendment only refers to ‘the people.’”
The administration attempted to claim that the Second Amendment was not ratified during the founding era. It stated that the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 marked the beginning of the foundational era. In a notice of additional authority, the government provided support for its position by referring to a three-judge panel ruling from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the NRA v. Bondi case.
Judge Kleeh noted that the plaintiffs in Bondi had the option of an en banc review, which meant that the entire Eleventh Circuit Court would hear the case.
He also mentioned that the panel decision is vacated—that is, it is as if it never happened—when an en banc review is approved. He also brought up the fact that the government had months to respond to the en banc review, but it opted not to. The judge himself thinks that the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791 placed us in the foundation age.
“[T]he Bondi decision was vacated on July 14, 2023, when the Eleventh Circuit granted a petition for rehearing and decided to rehear the case en banc,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the authority to which Defendants point the Court is no longer “authority.” To date, Defendants have inexplicably failed to update or withdraw their Notice of Supplemental Authority despite the fact that the Eleventh Circuit opinion—published over four months ago—vacates the Bondi panel’s opinion and dedicates significant time in their papers discounting the Fourth Circuit’s Hirschfeld opinion for the same reason.”
The judge declared that the ATF had not provided any founding-era statutes that might serve as a model for the 18–20-year-old firearm restriction. The government’s most similar law to the founding era was passed in 1856. The statute was too far removed from the founding era, according to Judge Kleeh.
The government attempted to claim that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to file a lawsuit. ATF attorneys asserted that the plaintiffs could persuade their parents to purchase the weapons and then give them as gifts. The plaintiffs could not file a lawsuit based on the law, according to the administration, since they could still obtain firearms.
The judge resoundingly rejected the government’s existing defenses.
WVCDL and SAF expressed satisfaction with the judge’s ruling. The leadership of the SAF made clear how the government was unable to support its claims. It also made note of the fact that 18-year-olds can enlist in the military and assume adult duties. A sixteen-year-old who enlists in the military is eligible to get a machine gun and a sidearm, but he is not legally allowed to purchase a.22LR handgun.
“This is a huge victory for Second Amendment rights, especially for young adults,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Biden Justice Department argued that people in this age group were not adults, which was patently ludicrous. The government simply could not defend the constitutionality of the handgun prohibition, and Judge Kleeh’s ruling makes that clear.”
“There was never any historical evidence supporting this arbitrary ban on the purchase and ownership of handguns by young adults,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we maintained all along, history goes in the opposite direction. At that age historically, young adults were considered mature enough to serve in the militia, the military and take on other responsibilities. We’re delighted with the judge’s ruling.”
Additionally, the judge did not believe that a stay of his ruling was necessary; therefore, for the plaintiffs and other eligible 18–20-year-olds, his decision is final. It is anticipated that the government will file an appeal and ask for an emergency stay.
The ATF has suffered another setback with this ruling. One of the ATF’s worst years in the courts has been this one. In court disputes involving bump stocks, pistol braces, forced reset triggers, frames, receivers, and other issues, the ATF has also lost.
About John Crump