Summary
The Fourth Circuit held that 18- to 20-year-olds possess Second Amendment rights, and that federal laws (18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1)) prohibiting licensed dealers from selling handguns to that age group are unconstitutional. The court rejected arguments that the laws were presumptively lawful as "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" or as "longstanding" prohibitions, finding they operated as a functional ban on a class of adult buyers. Applying the two-part Chester test, the court determined that Founding-era militia laws requiring 18-year-olds to serve and bring their own arms demonstrated historical Second Amendment coverage, and that the government failed to justify the age-based restriction under intermediate scrutiny due to overinclusiveness and lack of tailoring. The case vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded, with one plaintiff's claim mooted upon turning 21.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18- to 20-year-olds are protected by the Second Amendment.
- Whether the challenged federal laws and regulations that prohibit licensed dealers from selling handguns to 18- to 20-year-olds violate the Second Amendment.
Holdings
- 18- to 20-year-olds possess Second Amendment rights. They are part of 'the people' protected by the Second Amendment, as evidenced by Founding-era militia laws that required 18-year-olds to serve in the militia and bring their own arms.
- The challenged laws and regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment because they substantially burden the core Second Amendment right of self-defense for law-abiding 18- to 20-year-olds and the government failed to justify the infringement under intermediate scrutiny.
- Hirschfeld's claims are moot because he has turned 21 and is no longer subject to the challenged restrictions.
Key quotations
“When do constitutional rights vest? At 18 or 21? 16 or 25? Why not 13 or 33? In the law, a line must sometimes be drawn. But there must be a reason why constitutional rights cannot be enjoyed until a certain age. Our nation's most cherished constitutional rights vest no later than 18. And the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is no different.” (p. 3)
“We first find that 18-year-olds possess Second Amendment rights. They enjoy almost every other constitutional right, and they were required at the time of the Founding to serve in the militia and furnish their own weapons. We then ask, as our precedent requires, whether the government has met its burden to justify its infringement of those rights under the appropriate level of scrutiny. To justify this restriction, Congress used disproportionate crime rates to craft over-inclusive laws that restrict the rights of overwhelmingly law-abiding citizens. And in doing so, Congress focused on purchases from licensed dealers without establishing those dealers as the source of the guns 18- to 20-year-olds use to commit crimes. So we hold that the challenged federal laws and regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.” (p. 3-4)
“Despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence, we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status.” (p. 72)
Factual background
Plaintiffs Natalia Marshall (age 19) and Tanner Hirschfeld (age 20) sought to purchase handguns from federally licensed dealers but were prohibited by federal laws and regulations that bar licensed dealers from selling handguns or handgun ammunition to persons under 21. Marshall sought a handgun for self-defense due to an abusive ex-boyfriend and her work as an equestrian trainer in remote areas. Hirschfeld turned 21 during the litigation, rendering his claims moot. The plaintiffs challenged the laws as facially invalid under the Second Amendment.
Procedural history
The district court held that the challenged federal laws and regulations were facially valid under the Second Amendment, concluding they were among 'longstanding prohibitions' and 'conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms' that Heller did not cast doubt on. The court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.