127 F.4th 583
5th Cir.2025Background
- Plaintiffs (individuals aged 18–20 and certain firearms-rights groups) challenged federal statutes and regulations that prohibit federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) from selling handguns to individuals under 21.
- The district court dismissed the suit, holding that the restrictions were consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation under the Second Amendment framework established by the Supreme Court in Bruen.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit noted that its prior precedent upholding these laws (NRA I) predated significant Supreme Court clarification in Bruen and Rahimi on how Second Amendment challenges must be analyzed.
- The Second Amendment challenge focused on both text and historical tradition: whether 18-to-20-year-olds are included among "the people" whose rights the Second Amendment protects, and whether history supports age-based restrictions.
- Plaintiffs asserted both facial and as-applied Second Amendment and equal protection claims; the district court did not address the as-applied claim to women under 21.
- The Fifth Circuit found that the plain text of the Second Amendment covers 18-to-20-year-olds and that the government had not met its burden under Bruen to demonstrate a historical tradition justifying such restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Second Amendment's plain text cover 18–20 year-olds buying handguns from FFLs? | Reese: Yes; the right to keep and bear arms includes the implicit right to purchase, and 18-20 year-olds are among "the people." | ATF: No; the Second Amendment does not guarantee any right to buy firearms from FFLs, and 18–20-year-olds are not covered by "the people." | Yes; the Amendment covers 18–20 year-olds acquiring firearms. |
| Are 18–20-year-olds part of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment? | Reese: Yes; historical sources and militia obligations at the founding included 18 year-olds. | ATF: No; historically, 21 was age of majority, and political rights (such as voting) were limited to those 21 and older. | Yes; historical and constitutional context includes 18–20 year-olds. |
| Is there a historical tradition supporting bans on handgun sales to 18–20 year-olds? | Reese: No; such bans did not exist at the Founding, and post-Reconstruction-era laws are not sufficiently probative under Bruen. | ATF: Yes; argues for analogous tradition via 19th-century and university restrictions, and paternalistic statutes. | No; insufficient historical tradition to sustain these bans. |
| Are the statutes and regulations at issue unconstitutional under the Second Amendment? | Reese: Yes; they facially violate the right as understood at the Founding. | ATF: No; they are consistent with historical limits on arms by age/immaturity. | Yes; statutes are unconstitutional as to 18–20 year-olds. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (establishes individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (incorporates Second Amendment right to states)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. (U.S. 2022) (sets framework requiring government to justify gun regulation by analogy to historical tradition)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (U.S. 2024) (further clarifies Bruen's methodology and upholds gun ban for individuals subject to domestic violence orders)
- National Rifle Ass’n, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) (prior Fifth Circuit precedent upholding a similar age-based handgun ban; overruled here)