Judge Rules Ban On Sale Of Firearms To People Under 21 Is Unconstitutional

Gun Counter Sale Store Shop shutterstock_Nomad_Soul 1686855574.jpg
Gun Counter Sale Store Shop shutterstock_Nomad_Soul 1686855574.jpg

RICHMOND, Virginia – A Federal District Court judge in Virginia has declared the federal prohibition of handguns being transferred to gun owners under 21 by federal firearms licensees (FFLs) unconstitutional.

The case, Fraser v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), was brought by four Virginia men between the ages of 18 and 20 who wanted to purchase handguns from a gun store. John “Corey” Fraser visited a local gun dealer in May of 2022 and attempted to buy a Glock 19x. Because federal law prohibits the transfer of a handgun to someone under the age of 21 through an FFL, Mr. Fraser was denied by the Virginia State Police background check. The other three men decided not to try to purchase handguns because of Fraser’s denial, but all insisted that they would if they could legally do so. Other than age, there are no disqualifying factors.

The men filed a federal lawsuit against the ATF a month later, claiming that the law violated the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. After an initial pre-trial conference last November, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The government then filed a motion to dismiss. A month later, in December of 2022, the men filed a motion for a summary judgment.

The government claimed that the men lacked standing because they could get a parent to make a straw purchase for them. Doing this would put the burden on the parent, and not all 18-year-olds have contact with their family. The government seemed to be reaching for any reason to claim that the Plaintiffs lacked standing. The judge didn’t buy the state’s argument.

The government also tried to claim that the men didn’t have standing since federal law doesn’t block them from buying a handgun in a private sale. The judge referenced a Fifth Circuit decision in NRA v. ATF that rejected the government’s claim that if a plaintiff can acquire a firearm without going through an FFL, then that plaintiff lacks standing.

“The reasoning in NRA and Reese are persuasive, and, considering that the Government cites no authority to the contrary, NRA and Reese stand unopposed,” Judge Robert Payne wrote.

The judge also discusses how the Bruen decision eliminated the “means end” test. He correctly points out that after Bruen many previous court decisions would not be the same.

Bruen marks a sea-change in Second Amendment law, throwing many prior precedents into question,” the judge wrote.

The judge points out that the court must only use the original text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment from 1791. The judge expressly rejects using laws from 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Some judges have used that date to rule against the Second Amendment, and the Amicus briefs from Brady, Giffords, and Everytown also cited the 1868 date. The judge pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the meaning of the Second Amendment, so 1868 is the wrong date to use.

The government tried to argue that there is no right to buy guns. They also argued that there is no right to buy a handgun from a particular source. The judge disagreed with the state’s case and ruled that the right to “keep and bear arms” also includes the right to purchase arms.

“Commonsense and logic tell us that, unless one is a maker of guns, the right to ‘keep’ /have a gun necessarily means that one must purchase it, steal it, be given it by another, or find one that another has lost. That, of course, includes a handgun which was the subject ‘arms’ in Heller. 554 U.S. at 628. Thus, given its ordinary, commonsense, and logical meaning the right to ‘keep arms’ (the right to ‘have’) of necessity includes the right, inter alia, to purchase arms. That then puts an end to the textual inquiry with the conclusion that the conduct at issue is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” the decision reads.

The court also explains that “the people,” as referenced in the Second Amendment, reference a “political community.” A political community is the age of the majority. That age would be 18. Everytown, in their Amicus Brief, claimed that 18-year-olds are not part of “the people.” The judge called out Everytown on their assumption.

The judge points out that the government did not present any evidence of age-based restrictions from the founding era. The government did point to laws in Alabama and Tennessee in 1856. The judge felt this was too far removed from the founding era. To the government’s dismay, the judge refused to consider those laws.

“The Government has not presented any evidence of age-based restrictions on the purchase or sale of firearms from the colonial era, Founding, or Early Republic. See Exhibit B {ECF No. 30-2); Gov. Replace Br. at 17-18 {‘there were no laws during [the] period [from 1776 to 1789] explicitly prohibiting the sale of firearms or handguns to individuals under the age of 21’). Nor has the Government offered evidence of such regulation between then and 1791 or in relevant proximity thereafter. For that reason alone, it has failed to meet the burden imposed on it by Bruen,” the judge wrote.

Since the judge was able to come to his conclusion by using the Second Amendment, he stated that there was no need to consider an equal protection analysis. The ATF will likely appeal Judge Payne’s decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit has a history of making anti-gun rulings, so many in the gun community are unsure how the case will be decided at the next level.


About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

John Crump
22 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nanashi

The ban on sales to those under 18 is also unconstitutional.

HLB

Yes, this is the legal community attempting to define maturity with a simple number.

HLB

Rob J

So Everytown contends that 18-20 year olds are not part of “the people”? I would love to hear them attempt to argue this to the families of the thousands of soldiers in this demographic that have their lives in service to their country.

Desert Guy

Imagine what the military would be like without 18-20 year-olds?

Trussman

Yet the democrat leadership wants to reduce the age to vote down to 16 years old, claiming they are mature enough to vote.

PMinFl

Only if they vote the “right” way.

Mac

Yes and 18 years old is currently mature enough to vote, marry, sign contracts, serve in the military and vote; sounds like a full fledged adult to me.

Rob J

The defining difference making it a “different time” is personal responsibility and accountability, or the lack there of these days.

I was one of those kids who got a driver’s license at age 14 and the first thing I did was put a rear window mount gun rack in my truck so I could take my .22, deer rifle, and shotgun with me to school because I never knew what game I’d run into on the way to or from school.

Rob J

Or if you do get involved you can find yourself on the wrong end of the law and accused of being a vigilante. So I can kind of understand the hesitancy these days, especially if it is a property crime that even the police are hog tied from doing something. There is currently a discharged marine facing 2nd degree manslaughter in NY for chokehold subduing a mentally ill violent homeless man who was threatening himself and other subway riders. The homeless man was on the violence watch list for the surrounding homeless shelters and had been arrested and released multiple… Read more »

Green Mtn. Boy

It always was since it’s inception in 1968 but then so is every other gun control infringement.

Boxer dog

Musicman, love most of your comments… just figured I’d chirp in here to say that time is still here. I know several 13 year olds responsible enough where they are trusted to carry rifles and pistols in and around during their daily lives… good on the parents to teach them safety and responsibility. Too bad not all are teaching their kids the “responsible” and “appropriate” uses of firearms… it would make for a much better world.

Desert Guy

Whomever said the guy’s parent should make a straw purchase for them obviously hasn’t read a form 4473.

Rob J

Nor have they seen the push by the ATF shutting down FFL’s for such actions.

KenW

Not only that but I assume most states also have a prohibition on selling handguns to anyone under 21.

Rodoeo

If you think that was a different time just wait. Our southern border is being invaded by 3rd world citizens as we speak.

J.galt

Duh……of course it is

KenW

Yea, it took anti-establishment song from the 1960’s to get the voting age changed to 18, “you’re old enough to kill, but not for votin…”

So, you can get drafted but you cannot buy a pistol or a beer for that matter. I remember when the age to purchase alcohol was changed to 18 in Florida, only to have Bill Clinton blackmail the states into raising it to 21.

When I was in the Marines a local hardware store had a S & W Model 19 for sale, I had to get a buddy to buy it for me.

Bubba

I love how the FATF wanted to make it the responsibility of the parents. Not the Adults that wanted to purchase the firearm…

FATF FJB, FFBI. FNFA, FGCA68

jack mac

Government reasonings could be if one is prohibited from buying a gun means they should not possess guns. Reason to convict as felons hence can be subjugated into the official underclass of prohibited persons at a young age for life. A win-win for the ATF and its friends. With the presence of an official underclass to be subjugated, it is now more difficult to remain free and exercise all the rights of citizens. There is an ever-increasing number of pretenses other than felony to be classified as a prohibited person. It is my understanding that not allowing the government to… Read more »

Chuck

The Hypocrisy is so thick you can walk on it. The same Leftists pushing to deny the sale of any firearms to anyone under age 21, are the very same Leftists pushing for the Voting Age to be reduced to 16.

The mind boggles.

Stag

Finally!

DIYinSTL

I had to laugh reading the name of plaintiff John “Corey” Fraser. John Corey is the action hero in many a Nelson DeMille novel. The John Corey stories are of a similar genre to the Jack Reacher and Bob Lee Swagger novels. Good reads, all of them.