The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that federal laws prohibiting licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to adults under 21 violate the Second Amendment. The ruling, issued on January 30, 2025, in Caleb Reese et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, overturns a district court decision and finds that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) are unconstitutional.
Case Background
The plaintiffs in this case included young adults who were directly affected by the federal restrictions, as well as organizations advocating for Second Amendment rights, including the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Louisiana Shooting Association. They challenged federal regulations preventing Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) from selling handguns to individuals between the ages of 18 and 20, arguing that such restrictions unfairly infringed upon their constitutional rights.
Under the existing law, individuals in this age group could still acquire handguns through private transactions or receive them as gifts. However, they were barred from purchasing handguns from licensed dealers, which the plaintiffs argued constituted an undue restriction on their right to keep and bear arms. The case sought to determine whether such a restriction was consistent with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.
The district court had ruled in favor of the government, concluding that the restrictions aligned with historical firearm regulations. However, the plaintiffs appealed, arguing that recent Supreme Court rulings had changed the legal landscape and required a different analysis of the issue.
The Court’s Legal Analysis
In its ruling, the Fifth Circuit rejected the district court’s decision and found that the federal handgun sales ban was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The court applied the legal framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), which requires courts to evaluate gun regulations based on historical precedent rather than balancing tests.
The opinion, authored by Judge Edith H. Jones, provided several key conclusions:
1. The Second Amendment Protects the Right to Purchase Firearms
The court held that the right to “keep and bear arms” necessarily includes the right to acquire them. While the Second Amendment does not explicitly mention purchasing firearms, the court ruled that the ability to buy them is a fundamental aspect of the right to bear arms.
Judge Jones pointed out that a right to possess or carry firearms would be meaningless if individuals were unable to obtain them through legal means. This interpretation aligns with previous judicial opinions that have found that restrictions on the sale or transfer of firearms can constitute an infringement on Second Amendment rights.
2. 18-to-20-Year-Olds Are Part of “The People” Protected by the Second Amendment
The government argued that 18-to-20-year-olds were not considered full members of the political community at the time of the nation’s founding and therefore were not entitled to the same Second Amendment protections. The court rejected this argument, citing historical evidence that young adults were not only permitted but required to own firearms.
The ruling referenced the 1792 Militia Act, which mandated that all able-bodied males aged 18 to 45 enroll in the militia and furnish their own firearms. The court reasoned that if young adults were expected to arm themselves for militia service, they must have had the right to acquire firearms. The court emphasized that the Second Amendment applies to all members of “the people,” and there was no historical basis for excluding young adults from that category.
3. No Historical Tradition of Restricting Young Adults from Purchasing Firearms
The court examined historical firearm regulations and found no evidence of a founding-era tradition that restricted the ability of 18-to-20-year-olds to purchase firearms. Instead, historical laws encouraged firearm ownership among this age group, particularly to fulfill militia obligations.
The government presented several 19th-century laws that imposed age restrictions on firearm ownership, but the court dismissed these as being too far removed from the founding era. The Bruen decision emphasized that post-Civil War regulations do not provide a reliable basis for interpreting the original meaning of the Second Amendment.
4. The Government Failed to Justify the Restrictions Under the Bruen Standard
Under the Bruen test, the government bears the burden of proving that a firearm regulation aligns with historical traditions. The court ruled that the government failed to provide sufficient historical analogues supporting the handgun sales ban. Instead, the laws cited by the government were enacted much later in American history and did not demonstrate a longstanding tradition of restricting firearm access for young adults.
The court also rejected the government’s argument that age-based restrictions were analogous to historical laws prohibiting certain groups, such as convicted felons or those deemed dangerous, from possessing firearms. The ruling clarified that young adults were never categorically barred from firearm ownership based on age alone.
Ruling and Next Steps
The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and declared that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) are unconstitutional. The case has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
This ruling directly affects states within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction, including Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Federally licensed firearms dealers in these states will no longer be restricted from selling handguns to adults aged 18 to 20. However, the ruling does not prevent individual states from enacting their own restrictions.
Potential Legal and Political Implications
The ruling could have broader implications beyond the Fifth Circuit. Legal experts anticipate that the federal government may appeal the decision, either by requesting an en banc review from the full Fifth Circuit or by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court takes up the case, it could establish a nationwide precedent clarifying the Second Amendment rights of young adults. Given the Court’s recent rulings in Bruen and Rahimi, which have expanded Second Amendment protections, there is a possibility that the high court could affirm the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.
The decision also raises questions about other age-based firearm restrictions, including state laws that impose similar limitations on young adults. If the ruling stands, it could serve as a basis for challenging age-related gun restrictions in other jurisdictions.
Reactions to the Decision
The ruling has been met with praise from gun rights advocates, who argue that denying young adults access to firearms from licensed dealers was an arbitrary and unconstitutional restriction. They contend that individuals who are old enough to serve in the military should also be allowed to exercise their full Second Amendment rights.
On the other hand, gun control groups have criticized the decision, warning that expanding access to handguns for younger individuals could increase gun violence. They argue that 18-to-20-year-olds have higher rates of violent crime and suicide and that restrictions on firearm purchases for this age group serve an important public safety function.
Conclusion
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling represents a significant shift in Second Amendment jurisprudence and reinforces the principle that firearm regulations must align with the historical tradition of gun laws. The decision challenges long-standing federal restrictions and sets the stage for further legal battles over age-based gun laws.
As the case moves forward, it will likely shape the national conversation on gun rights and could have a lasting impact on firearm regulations across the country.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented.
Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may be interested in our publishing on the 772 arrest notifications TCOLE received in 2024..
Or you may find our publishing on a newly elected Texas sheriff’s battle with TCOLE over the accuracy of his personal history statement of interest.
Follow Us on Social Media
If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News