Joshua McCoy v. ATF, 140 F.4th 568

Background

Four plaintiffs, aged 18-20, challenged 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), which prohibits federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to persons under 21.
The district court found the statute unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, certifying a nationwide class.
The government appealed, arguing there is a historical tradition permitting age-based firearm sale restrictions.
The Fourth Circuit (panel) reversed, holding § 922(b)(1) constitutional and directed that the case be dismissed.
The opinion referenced historical restrictions on infants’ (under 21) contracting and purchasing capacity and later (19th-century) state laws restricting handgun sales to those under 21.
The panel was divided: the majority upheld the statute under Bruen’s historical tradition analysis, while one judge dissented, finding insufficient founding-era support for such a restriction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 922(b)(1)'s age-based handgun purchase ban violate the Second Amendment?	The ban violates the Second Amendment; 18-20-year-olds are “the people” covered, and the statute is not supported by founding-era tradition.	The regulation fits within historical tradition; minors were restricted from contracting/purchasing goods including firearms.	The ban is constitutional; it is justified by historical tradition.
Are 18-20-year-olds included in "the people" protected by the Second Amendment?	Yes; they are part of the political/national community, similar to coverage under other amendments.	Not decided directly but assumed for purposes of this case; argued that historical evidence suggests otherwise.	Assumed without deciding that 18-20-year-olds are covered by the Second Amendment.
Is restricting commercial sales from FFLs a functional infringement or a presumptively lawful regulation?	The ban is a functional prohibition, not just a permissible “condition” on sale; it targets buyers, not sellers.	It is a presumptively lawful historical restriction, analogous to longstanding conditions on commercial sale.	The law is a valid, "relevantly similar" burden; upheld as constitutional.
Do founding-era militia laws undermine the government's position?	The Militia Act of 1792 required 18-year-olds to be armed, showing that group was expected to acquire firearms.	The statute did not specifically mandate the right to purchase; parental provisioning was common and purchase was not implied.	The Militia Act does not mandate a constitutional right to purchase at 18.

Key Cases Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment protects individual right to bear arms; handguns are “quintessential self-defense weapon”)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (established the "text, history, and tradition" test for modern gun regulations)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (applied Second Amendment to the states)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (discusses analogical reasoning and applying historical principles to modern gun laws)
United States v. Hosford, 843 F.3d 161 (distinguished between conditions on sale and functional prohibitions under the Second Amendment)