Quote of the Day
Today’s ruling is yet another critical 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.
Brandon Combs
President of the Firearms Policy Coalition
January 30, 2025
Appeals Court Strikes Down Federal Law Barring Gun Sales to Adults Under 21 – Newsweek
For some time, I have been watching the lawsuits against laws prohibiting 18 -> 20-year-olds from purchasing handguns. At first, I was a little annoyed that resources were put into this effort. Laws restricting magazine capacity and “assault weapons” affect far more people. But I have come to agree with this allocation of resources.
It should be a relatively easy win. These people are considered adults in almost all other areas of law and constitutionally protected rights. Another win will be another brick in the wall and make the entire wall stronger.
18-to-20 year-olds ARE considered “the People” for all other purposes, but that’s not why this win has been so long in coming.
It’s because lawsuits challenging laws like this often take years. When 18- or 19-year-olds are denied their right to purchase the same handguns they could legally possess if the guns were willed or gifted to them, they have standing to challenge the prohibition. And the State will file motions, delay, ask for continuances, delay some more, schedule hearings as far out as possible, etc. Time marches on, the plaintiffs eventually turn 21 and are legally allowed to purchase those handguns, and then they lose standing to challenge the law because it no longer applies to them; their challenge is considered moot and dies right there, with no lasting impact to the prohibition.
What happened this time is either: the appeals court moved much faster than usual and got to issuing their ruling before the plaintiff(s) turned 21, OR the courts finally (and correctly) decided that the prohibition should be challenged prima facie — on its face, because it affects ALL 18-to-20 year-olds who wish to exercise their rights — rather than “as applied” to a specific plaintiff who would eventually turn 21 and lose standing.
(And I’m sure the history of similar challenges demonstrated a pattern of abuse on the part of the States, which swayed the Court’s decision to allow a prima facie challenge or otherwise NOT rule the case mooted by time.)
All in all, solid win, and worth celebrating.
I had the same hesitation at first—why focus on the under-21 crowd when broader bans impact more people? But you’re right, wins like this set important precedents and make the larger structure that much harder to tear down.