140 F.4th 568
4th Cir.2025Background
- 18 to 20-year-old plaintiffs challenged the federal ban on commercial sales of handguns to persons under 21 (18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1)), arguing it violates their Second Amendment rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding the law unconstitutional.
- The government appealed, arguing the restriction fits within the historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the law under the Supreme Court’s "text, history, and tradition" test articulated in Bruen.
- The majority reversed the district court, upholding the constitutionality of § 922(b)(1), while one judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Second Amendment cover 18-20 year-olds? | 18-20 year-olds are “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, entitled to purchase handguns. | 18-20 year-olds were traditionally considered minors without full rights; their regulation is supported by history. | Assumed without deciding; analysis proceeded as though they are covered. |
| Does the ban on commercial handgun sales to 18-20 year-olds violate the Second Amendment? | Ban is an unconstitutional burden, not supported by founding-era firearm regulations; right to purchase is needed to exercise right to "keep and bear" arms. | Ban fits within the tradition of restrictions on minors due to immaturity and historical contract law; parallels infancy doctrine. | Ban is constitutional as it is analogous to historical restrictions on minors’ contractual/purchase rights. |
| Is the Militia Act of 1792 evidence that 18-20 year-olds had a right to purchase arms? | Militia Act required 18+ males to provide themselves with firearms, showing recognition of their right to acquire arms. | "Provide himself" could mean by gift or parental provision; not dispositive for a right to purchase. | Militia Act does not guarantee an individual right to purchase; other means for minors to obtain arms existed. |
| Are 19th-century state laws restricting handgun sales to minors relevant or controlling? | Such laws post-date the Second Amendment’s ratification and cannot override its original meaning. | 19th-century restrictions reinforce the tradition of prohibiting commercial handgun sales to those under 21. | History confirms a tradition of age-based restrictions; supports constitutionality of § 922(b)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual right to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (set out "text, history, and tradition" test for Second Amendment challenges)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (clarified that historical analysis focuses on regulatory principles, not exact historical matches)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (applied Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment)