545 F.Supp.3d 1247
N.D. Fla.2021Background
- In response to the February 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas school shooting (perpetrator was 19), Florida enacted the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, which generally prohibits persons under 21 from purchasing firearms from licensed dealers and imposes criminal penalties for violations.
- Plaintiffs (NRA and Radford Fant, an 18–20‑year‑old Floridian who wishes to buy handguns and long guns) brought a facial challenge under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; Defendant is the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner (official capacity).
- The core legal question: whether the Second Amendment protects 18–20‑year‑olds’ right to purchase firearms (threshold Step One of the Eleventh Circuit’s two‑step framework).
- The parties disputed historical evidence: Plaintiffs argued Founding‑Era militia practice shows 18–20‑year‑olds historically had the right to arms; Defendant pointed to mid‑19th/early‑20th century state laws and federal laws restricting transfers to minors (often under 21).
- The court applied Eleventh Circuit precedent (two‑step test), concluded age‑based purchase restrictions are "longstanding" and analogous to Heller’s listed exceptions, and therefore held the Second Amendment does not protect the purchase at issue; summary judgment for Defendant was granted.
- The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection challenge, applying rational‑basis review and finding the age classification rationally related to Florida’s interest in reducing gun violence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Second Amendment protects 18–20‑year‑olds’ purchase of firearms | Historical militia laws and the Militia Act show 18–20‑year‑olds historically had the right to keep and bear arms and therefore the purchase right is protected | Later historical practice and 19th/20th‑century statutes restricting transfers to minors (often under 21) show such purchases fall outside the Amendment | Held for Defendant: Eleventh Circuit precedent treats longstanding, analogous prohibitions as outside the Second Amendment, so the Amendment does not protect these purchases |
| Whether age‑based purchase prohibitions are “longstanding” under Heller | Plaintiffs: lack of uniform Founding‑Era restrictions; many early restrictions targeted only handguns and historical record is mixed | Defendant: significant mid‑19th/early‑20th‑century state laws and federal restrictions (1960s Safe Streets/Gun Control Acts) show a longstanding tradition of age‑based limits | Held for Defendant: court found the prohibitions longstanding in time and analogous to Heller’s listed exceptions |
| Whether Plaintiffs may rebut the presumption or pursue as‑applied relief | Plaintiffs argued the presumption should be rebuttable and the law is overbroad, affecting independent young adults disproportionately | Defendant relied on Eleventh Circuit decisions treating longstanding prohibitions as categorically outside the Amendment (no rebuttal permitted) | Held for Defendant: under Eleventh Circuit law the longstanding‑regulation determination ends the Second Amendment inquiry at Step One |
| Equal Protection challenge (age classification) | Plaintiffs: the Act irrationally discriminates by age and unduly burdens 18–20‑year‑olds | Defendant: age classification is rationally related to public safety and reducing firearm violence given higher relative risk in that age group | Held for Defendant: rational basis satisfied; Equal Protection claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes an individual right to bear arms and lists categories of "presumptively lawful" longstanding regulations)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates the Second Amendment against the states and reiterates Heller's assurances)
- GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2012) (adopts the Eleventh Circuit two‑step framework requiring historical inquiry at Step One)
- United States v. White, 593 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2010) (approves treating longstanding, analogous regulations as presumptively lawful and outside the Amendment)
- United States v. Focia, 869 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2017) (applies the Eleventh Circuit two‑step test and analyzes historical scope)
- United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholds felon‑disqualification from firearm possession under Heller’s framework)
- Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (engages text‑history‑tradition analysis and discusses Heller’s presumptively lawful category)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (examines historical development of felon‑dispossession laws and related Second Amendment questions)