In May, a District Court judge in Virginia ruled that a ban on selling handguns to adults under 21 was unconstitutional. When the plaintiffs and the ATF couldn’t agree on how a restraining order would work while the case moves through the courts, Senior United States District Judge Robert Payne came down on the side of the plaintiffs in Fraser v. ATF.
Last night, the judge issued a nationwide order allowing handgun sales to all adults under 21 years of age. As Judge Payne wrote in his Bruen-based ruling . . .
In sum, [under Bruen] the Second Amendment right that is the subject of the claim in this case is itself a matter of great public interest. That, of course, is because “[t]he constitutional right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense is not a ‘second class right’…. To implement that right by enjoining a legal regime that trenches upon it can hardly be said to disserve the public interest. …
In sum, people between the ages of 18 and 21 in the Eastern District of Virginia, suffer an equal burden as people of the same age in the Southern District of New York, the Central District of California, or any other district. The government’s polices affect – and harm – each of them equally. Therefore [the] categorical polices relied upon by the Government call for categorical relief.” Only a nationwide injunction will “prevent irreparable injury to plaintiffs,” who, since a class has been certified, include all American citizens between the ages of 18 to 21 who are otherwise qualified to purchase a gun. …
[T]he Court’s ruling does, and must, apply to protect the Second Amendment rights of all citizens between the ages of 18 to 21 who are otherwise eligible to buy a handgun.
Judge Payne, noting two similar pending cases, excluded the Western District of Louisiana and the Northern District of West Virginia from his order.
Read Judge Payne order here.
I’m bad — I’m nationwide!
Everyone sing together with me: … and the walls came tumbling down!
(Okay, that may be the refrain from a children’s song about the Biblical figure Joshua and the Biblical city of Jericho. Nevertheless, it fits this situation nicely and I could not help myself.)
Updated version, one of my favorites (beware: possible earworm infection) —
“They stood there laughing … they’re not laughing any more.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kX8lqXAONg
On a more serious note: I have a son/daughter (I will not disclose my child’s birth sex on an open forum) who would have benefited from this very legal action. When my child was 18 years old, my son/daughter wanted to purchase a handgun primarily for recreational shooting and secondarily for self-defense on long trips in the event of a vehicle breakdown in a remote location. Of course federal law prevented him/her from purchasing a handgun. And thus that unconstitutional federal law harmed my son/daughter.
And before anyone chimes in that said federal law isn’t such a big deal because parents can purchase a handgun and give it to their adult child as a gift, consider adult children whose parents died before they reached age 18, adult children who are estranged from their parents, and adult children whose parents hate firearms and thus refuse to purchase a handgun for their adult child.
Consider also that state law also applies. In some states (Pennsylvania) you could purchase a handgun, and give it to your 18 + year old child with no additional government involvement, your child under age 21 could not yet get a License to carry Firearms. The only place your child could then transport said firearm would be between home and range, home and vacation home, home and gun shop/gun smith, or home and fixed place of business, unloaded and in the remotest part of the vehicle. There are people in PA who have done time for having an unloaded non-functional gun under the spare tire in the trunk while not having a License to Carry Firearms. Check your state (and in some states, local) laws as well as federal.
Crimson Pirate,
Excellent commentary and warning that many states still have state-level legal entanglements.
In my adult child’s case it was legal to own and have the handgun in a vehicle as long as the handgun was unloaded and either locked in a case or in the trunk. Of course that doesn’t do any good while driving. In the event of a breakdown, however, said adult child could remove the handgun from the vehicle, load it, and carry it outside the vehicle for self-defense.
Needless to say, different states have different laws which also cry-out for a permanent injunction preventing said states from enforcing said unconstitutional laws. (Unfortunately, my state’s firearms rights groups have done absolutely NOTHING since the Bruen decision–and not even after more recent injunctions which would make similar injunctions a slam-dunk in my state.)
Current Ohio law for age 18-21:
(A) No person shall do any of the following:
(1) Sell any firearm to a person who is under eighteen years of age;
(2) Subject to division (B) of this section, sell any handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age;
(3) Furnish any firearm to a person who is under eighteen years of age or, subject to division (B) of this section, furnish any handgun to a person who is under twenty-one years of age, except for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes, including, but not limited to, instruction in firearms or handgun safety, care, handling, or marksmanship under the supervision or control of a responsible adult;
(4) Sell or furnish a firearm to a person who is eighteen years of age or older if the seller or furnisher knows, or has reason to know, that the person is purchasing or receiving the firearm for the purpose of selling the firearm in violation of division (A)(1) of this section to a person who is under eighteen years of age or for the purpose of furnishing the firearm in violation of division (A)(3) of this section to a person who is under eighteen years of age;
(5) Sell or furnish a handgun to a person who is twenty-one years of age or older if the seller or furnisher knows, or has reason to know, that the person is purchasing or receiving the handgun for the purpose of selling the handgun in violation of division (A)(2) of this section to a person who is under twenty-one years of age or for the purpose of furnishing the handgun in violation of division (A)(3) of this section to a person who is under twenty-one years of age;
(6) Purchase or attempt to purchase any firearm with the intent to sell the firearm in violation of division (A)(1) of this section to a person who is under eighteen years of age or with the intent to furnish the firearm in violation of division (A)(3) of this section to a person who is under eighteen years of age;
(7) Purchase or attempt to purchase any handgun with the intent to sell the handgun in violation of division (A)(2) of this section to a person who is under twenty-one years of age or with the intent to furnish the handgun in violation of division (A)(3) of this section to a person who is under twenty-one years of age.
(B) Divisions (A)(1) and (2) of this section do not apply to the sale or furnishing of a handgun to a person eighteen years of age or older and under twenty-one years of age if the person eighteen years of age or older and under twenty-one years of age is a law enforcement officer who is properly appointed or employed as a law enforcement officer and has received firearms training approved by the Ohio peace officer training council or equivalent firearms training. Divisions (A)(1) and (2) of this section do not apply to the sale or furnishing of a handgun to an active duty member of the armed forces of the United States who has received firearms training that meets or exceeds the training requirements described in division (G)(1) of section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of improperly furnishing firearms to a minor, a felony of the fifth degree.
Sadly, this is true for all people who don’t have a carry license in Ca.
I’m curious to see how Newsom’s going to try to navigate this development…
To be clear, you do not need a ccw to transport firearms as long as they are unloaded and in a locked container. However you do need to be over 18 to purchase a handgun.
The ruling addresses your observation directly:
“Nor is the irreparability of the constitutional injury eliminated because, as the Government argues, the Plaintiffs and class members “may lawfully obtain handguns as a gift from their parents.” Nothing in the Second Amendment limits the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their constitutional rights to what a third-party, by grace, may choose (or not) to do to help Plaintiffs exercise that right (here the right to purchase that which the Second Amendment entitles them to purchase on their own).”
RE: “Only a nationwide injunction will “prevent irreparable injury to plaintiffs,” who, since a class has been certified, include all American citizens between the ages of 18 to 21 who are otherwise qualified to purchase a gun.”
Oh wow mr. brace…Everyone between 18 and 21 receives equal treatment without having to run join a Gun Rights org…my my.
If you’re not supporting gun rights groups, you’re part of the problem. If everyone that believes in our Constitution gave $17.76 right now we could end all gun laws!
Good to know. I’ve been financially supporting the NRA for twenty years.
So …
“If everyone that believes in our Constitution gave $17.76 right now we could end all gun laws!”
Gotta disagree. “Gun Rights” orgs are primarily interested in ensuring the firearm industry continues to make money, else, the “Gun Rights” orgs would attack, again and again, NFA and GCA, the underpinning of all gun control laws.
Indeed, “Gun Rights” orgs depend on the continued infringement of the Second Amendments. Without infringements, “Gun Rights” orgs have no mission, no donations, no income, no perks.
It is advantageous for “Gun Rights” orgs to stretch out the battle, rather than “go for the throat” of the anti-2A groups; NFA/GCA. When any group solves the problem for which it was created, that group becomes irrelevant; not goodski.
The Neanderthals of the Far Right are still living in the stone age. They totally ignore science when it does not fit their out of date far right fantaical viewpoints. Science has proven that young men under 25 years of age act on impulse and do not realized the consequences of their actions. These are exactly the type of people you “do not” want to see have access to handguns. Young men get roaring drunk on weekend nights, desire to find a fight somewhere and often fight over scantily clad women in bars. Only a complete fool would put hanguns into their possession.
The Far Right will scream about a long gone distant age that was far less complicated than today’s world. Yes, people got married at 16 in ancient times but they did not have computers, drug addiction, and lack of purpose in life because of a scarcity of decent paying jobs which today require a degree in higher education. Marriage was considered sacred and divorce a sign of sin and depravity which resulted in couples staying together and raising children properly.
Auto accidents also have been proven to be much higher with people under 25 years of age as well. Again life experience and maturity play a large part in auto accidents and the young have neither.
The laughable Far Right mentality claims that when they were young they got married at 16, raised a family, became rich and were a success in life. The real truth is that those so called good old days existed for very few even back in those long gone days.
The Far Right Neanderthals scream if you can serve in the military you should be considered a full fledged mature adult. In reality those young men that go into the military often do so because they are anything but mature and responsible.
The harsh reality is that many adults are not responsible enough to be trusted with a deadly weapon these days and claiming that an immature teenager is responsible can only be classed as laughable as well as tragic.
I just finished reading the entire court order. It is very well reasoned, truthful, and accurate. (No surprise: federal government uttered the magical incantation “public interest”. Pleasant surprise: the court rejected that magical incantation.) I don’t see how any court could justly overturn that order.
Now for the really fun question: how long before federal firearm licensees (such as chain stores) learn about this injunction and allow 18 to 20 year-old adults to purchase handguns at their stores?
And the second fun question: how long before a similar lawsuit moves a court to issue a similar injunction which finally allows people in any state to directly purchase handguns from federal firearm licensees in other states (without having to affect a transfer through a federal firearm licensee in the purchaser’s home state)?
That example is on of our biggest infringements. If I’m of age, I should be able to buy in all 50 states.
So a 19 year old can buy a handgun today? Oof. My son wanted to buy a 1911 yesterday. He bought a lever action Henry instead since he wasn’t allowed to buy a handgun. Now he’s waiting out the extended time period they recently implemented. It was his first firearm purchase.
Dude,
While I am not an attorney, I am an intelligent person with excellent reading comprehension skills. That court order makes it very clear (in my opinion) that your 19 year-old should be able to purchase a handgun today from a federal firearms licensee.
Having said that, I suspect that your local federal firearms licensee is not aware of that court order. And even if your local federal firearms licensee is aware of that order, I suspect that your local federal firearms licensee will not yet sell to adults between the ages of 18 and 20 years-old.
When will your local federal firearms licensee honor that court order and start selling handguns to adults between the ages of 18 and 20 years old? That is a fun question to which I have no guess.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and ALL of my commentary on this topic is NOT legal advice. Seek competent legal council in your jurisdiction.
uncommon,
Well, yes and no. FFLs are SUPPOSED to refuse to sell to someone they are uncomfortable with (for any reason), and I personally know several who do that (my favorite LGS absolutely refuses to do business with Anti-fags, no matter what their age).
Even if an FFL knows about the ruling, given the current atmosphere, I can easily see a cautious FFL saying, “if this ruling gets overturned, I’ll be on the ATF’s sh*t list, and who needs that hassle?”. During California’s “Freedom Week”, in know of one chain gun store that had “large capacity magazines” in inventory, and still refused to sell them.
We’ve come a LONG ways, mostly straight downhill, from the days when we used to encourage youngsters to learn safe gun-handling, gun safety, etc., even taught it in some schools. Movement =/= “progress”, but we’ve definitely MOVED a long damn way . . . in the wrong direction.
Dude,
According to the court order (which I read in its entirety) it sure looks like your son should be able to purchase a handgun from a federal firearms licensee today without any legal jeopardy.
Of course it is anyone’s guess how long before federal firearms licensees will decide that there is no legal jeopardy for them if they sell handguns to adults 18 to 20 years-old.
Usual disclaimer–I am not an att0rney and the above is my personal opinion. Check with legal council in your location before attempting to purchase firearms.
(Apologies: I tried submitting a longer and more detailed response which is in moderation limbo.)
Cam Edwards reports that the judge also stayed his order, pending appeal by the Government.
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/08/31/federal-judge-grants-class-action-status-to-lawsuit-challenging-handgun-ban-for-young-adults-n74368
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.524643/gov.uscourts.vaed.524643.84.0.pdf
Per the link.
“While 19-year-olds can’t run out and buy a pistol from a gun store quite yet…”
TFred,
That makes no sense at all to an average sane person. The judge clearly illustrates how the law clearly violates the United States Constitution and is therefore void. Then he turns around and suspends his own order–thus allowing a clearly unconstitutional law to stand?
(Clarification: I believe you and your link TFred. I am merely stating that the judge’s action makes no sense at all.)
Uncommon … “As Payne noted in his ruling, one of the reasons why he stayed the injunction was the split that’s developed among courts across the country, with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that adults under the age of 21 can be prohibited from purchasing any firearm, while other judges have ruled that bans on carrying and other prohibitions for under-21s are unconstitutional.”
Where’s LKB when you need him? Did someone illuminate the Bat-Lawyer Signal?
Ban on ownership of a handgun by those under 18 is also unconstitutional.
Anyone Under 21 won’t be able to buy a handgun or “other” until the FBI NICS changes their system. You have to enter the transferee’s DOB and select firearm “type” to run a background check on a gun purchase. It won’t process for someone under 21 and “long gun” NOT selected.
“It won’t process for someone under 21 and “long gun” NOT selected.”
One should not conclude these logic traps are unintentional.
While this decision (TRO) is a victory, it does not effect state laws. Here in NYS, a young person still can’t buy a handgun as the “Great State of New York” will not issue a pistol permit to anyone under the age of 21.