National Rifle Ass'n of America, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22197
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellants challenge 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) and related regulations prohibiting FFLs from selling handguns to individuals under 21.
- The NRA sues on behalf of its under-21 members and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief; individual plaintiffs Payne, Jennings, and Harmon sue as under-21 at filing.
- District court granted summary judgment for the government; court found no viable Second Amendment or equal protection claim and found standing, though some plaintiffs later moot.
- Statutory framework: § 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) regulate sales to under-21s; regulations 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.99(b)(1), 478.96(b), 478.124(a) implement the prohibitions; later, 18 U.S.C. § 922(x) prohibited handgun possession by under-18s.
- Congress’s stated aim, reflected in the 1968 Act and Senate/House reports, is to curb crime by restricting access to handguns for youths via licensed dealers; long-standing age-based arm-regulation tradition is discussed.
- Court adopts a two-step framework: (1) whether the conduct falls within the Second Amendment; (2) if so, apply a form of heightened scrutiny (intermediate or strict) proportional to the burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the federal ban burden the Second Amendment right? | Payne/NRA contend under-21 handgun purchases are protected by the Second Amendment. | Government asserts the measure burdens a historical, regulated activity and falls under presumptively lawful restrictions. | Yes, burden exists; but law survives under intermediate scrutiny. |
| Do Payne and NRA have standing to challenge the laws? | Payne and NRA members suffer concrete injury by being unable to purchase from FFLs; NRA has associational standing. | Plaintiffs lack injury-in-fact and associational standing is lacking for under-21 members. | Payne and NRA have standing; some plaintiffs moot, but one under-21 plaintiff remains. |
| What framework governs post-Heller challenges to Second Amendment regulations? | Court should apply a traditional strict-scrutiny framework to firearm restrictions. | Heller does not create a single, uniform framework; necessity for tailored scrutiny. | Adopts a two-step framework: (a) determine scope under the Second Amendment; (b) apply intermediate or strict scrutiny as appropriate. |
| Do the laws survive intermediate scrutiny? | Age-based restrictions on commercial sale should fail heightened scrutiny as overly broad. | The measures are tailored to curb youth handgun access and align with historical regulation. | Yes; the laws pass intermediate scrutiny as reasonably adapted to an important government objective. |
| Is the equal protection claim valid under rational-basis review? | Age-based restriction is arbitrary and disfavors a suspect class. | Age classifications are rationally related to legitimate state interests and need not be strict. | Lawful under rational-basis review; age classifications are presumptively rational. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (identified core Second Amendment protections and longstanding presumptively lawful regulations)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment to the states)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability)
- Marzzarella v. Masciandaro, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (framework for heightened scrutiny in Second Amendment context)
- Portillo–Munoz v. United States, 643 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2011) (upheld firearm possession ban under circuit precedent)
- Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (recognized intermediate scrutiny as applicable to some regulations)
- Rene E. v. United States, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (upheld juvenile handgun possession prohibition as longstanding regulation)
- Skoien v. United States, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2011) (en banc decision applying intermediate scrutiny to firearm restriction)
- Chester v. United States, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (upheld intermediate scrutiny for certain firearm regulations)
- United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (historical analysis supporting juvenile handgun restrictions)