623 F.Supp.3d 740
N.D. Tex.2022Background
- Texas law prohibits persons under 21 from carrying a handgun in public, except on their own premises or in their vehicle; license-to-carry is generally unavailable to law‑abiding 18–20‑year‑olds (few narrow exceptions for military, veterans, protective‑order recipients).
- Two individual 18–20‑year‑old Texans and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) sued, challenging the age‑based ban on public carry and the related licensure bar; parties filed cross‑motions for summary judgment.
- The court found plaintiffs had Article III standing and that Bruen governs Second Amendment review: first ask whether the text covers the conduct, then whether the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- The court held the Second Amendment’s text covers law‑abiding 18–20‑year‑olds (they are part of “the people” and historically members of the militia) and that Texas failed to identify adequate historical analogues to justify a categorical age‑based public‑carry ban.
- The court enjoined enforcement of the challenged provisions insofar as they bar law‑abiding 18–20‑year‑olds from applying for a carry license, but stayed the injunction for 30 days (or pending appeal) to allow appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law‑abiding 18–20‑year‑olds are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment | 18–20s are members of the political community and historically in the militia, so they are covered | The age of majority historically was 21; prior Fifth Circuit precedent suggested limited protection | Held: 18–20‑year‑olds are part of “the people” and thus covered by the Second Amendment |
| Whether carrying a handgun in public for self‑defense by law‑abiding 18–20s is conduct covered by the Second Amendment | Text and founding‑era practice show individual right to carry for self‑defense outside the home applies to adults including 18–20s | Relies on Fifth Circuit precedents (NRA, McCraw) and historical age‑of‑majority norms to argue conduct is unprotected | Held: The plain text, informed by history, covers public carry by law‑abiding 18–20s |
| Whether Texas’s categorical, age‑based prohibition is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation | There is no sufficiently analogous, longstanding tradition of barring a broad age class from public carry; NRA/McCraw historical analyses are unpersuasive under Bruen | Texas points to historical safety laws, group‑based restrictions, and later 19th/early‑20th century laws restricting under‑21 firearms access | Held: Texas failed to meet its burden to identify historical analogues; the age‑based ban is not supported by the Nation’s historical tradition |
| Remedies and ancillary issues (stay; fees) | Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees under §1983/§1988 | State officials assert sovereign/qualified/prosecutorial immunity and argue Ex Parte Young and §1983 recovery are incompatible | Held: Court enjoined enforcement (narrowly), stayed injunction 30 days pending appeal; plaintiffs not barred as a matter of law from seeking fees |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (text‑and‑history test for Second Amendment review)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the States)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (historical definition of the militia)
- United States v. Verdugo‑Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (scope of “the people” in constitutional text)
- National Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) (Fifth Circuit historical analysis of age‑related firearms restrictions)
- McCraw v. City of Midland, 719 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2013) (Fifth Circuit application of Second Amendment analysis to Texas law)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (standing where plaintiff faces credible threat of enforcement)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (factors for stay pending appeal)