Reese v. ATF: Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Federal Handgun Purchase Ban for 18-to-20-Year-Olds

By Cameron Schlagel and V.R. Bohman

On January 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a landmark opinion in Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), holding that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), which prohibit federal firearms licensees (FFLs) from selling handguns to individuals aged 18 to 20, are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The Court reversed the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ challenge and remanded for further proceedings.

Background

The Plaintiffs are individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 and three nonprofit organizations, representing their members who are unable to buy handguns from FFLs, and FFLs who are prohibited from selling them handguns. They filed suit in the District Court against the ATF, its Director, and the Attorney General of the United States, challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and the corresponding regulations. The Plaintiffs allege that those laws infringe on their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment and deny them equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Government moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing the Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and failed to state a claim. The Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The District Court found that the Plaintiffs had standing but granted the Government’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

The District Court applied the framework established by the Supreme Court in New York Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), which requires courts to first determine whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct at issue, and if so, whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The District Court assumed that the plain text covered the purchase of firearms by 18-to-20-year-olds, but found that the prohibition was consistent with the historical tradition, relying heavily on a Fifth Circuit decision that predated Bruen and upheld the same laws under intermediate scrutiny.

The Fifth Circuit’s Opinion

The Fifth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Jones, reversed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the federal laws are inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The court applied the Bruen framework, as refined by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).

The court first held that the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct of purchasing firearms by 18-to-20-year-olds, because the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to acquire them. Additionally, the term “the people” refers to all members of the national community, not an unspecified subset. The court rejected the Government’s argument that 18-to-20-year-olds were not part of the political community at the founding, because they were not eligible to vote or exercise other civic rights. The court reasoned that here are no age or maturity restrictions in the text of the Amendment, and that the phrase “the people” is used elsewhere in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to confer individual rights that undoubtedly protect 18-to-20-year-olds. The term “the people,” the Court held, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. In addition, the court noted that the prefatory clause of the Amendment, which states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, indicates that 18-to-20-year-olds were among the people whose right to keep and bear arms was protected, as they were required to serve in the militia and provide their own weapons. For instance, the Militia Act of 1792 enrolled all free, able-bodied white male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 in the militia, and required them to furnish themselves with a musket or a rifle.

The court then held that the Government failed to justify the regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court examined the evidence of firearm access and ownership by 18-to-20-year-olds near and at the founding, and found that the Government presented scant evidence that their rights were restricted in a similar manner to the current handgun purchase ban. The court rejected the Government’s reliance on a few examples of founding-era regulations that asserted parental or supervisory authority over arms-bearing by 18-to-20-year-olds, such as laws requiring parental consent for militia service or parental provision of firearms for militia duty. The court found that these examples were too different in scope, purpose, and burden to establish a compelling historical analogue for the contemporary restrictions, and that they did not show that 18-to-20-year-olds lacked the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, the central component of the Second Amendment.

The court also rejected the Government’s reliance on 19th century statutes that purported to restrict firearm access by 18-to-20-year-olds, finding that those laws were passed too late in time to outweigh the tradition of acceptable firearm ownership by 18-to-20-year-olds at the founding. The court cautioned that not all history is created equal, and that constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or judges think that scope too broad. The court also noted that to the extent the Supreme Court considered 19th century sources in Heller and Bruen, it did so only to confirm and reinforce earlier historical evidence contemporaneous with the Constitution’s ratification, not to overcome or alter the text.

In sum, the federal laws are inconsistent with the Second Amendment, because they prohibit law-abiding, adult citizens from buying handguns from FFLs on account of their age, without any judicial determination of whether they pose a threat of misuse or violence. The court thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Impact and Implications

The Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Reese is a significant development in Second Amendment jurisprudence, as it is the first federal appellate court to strike down the federal handgun purchase ban for 18-to-20-year-olds under the Bruen framework. The opinion is notable for its extensive historical analysis and its originalist approach to interpreting the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. It also directly conflicts with the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, 121 F.4th 96 (10th Cir. 2024), which upheld a similar state ban on 18-to-20-year-old adults. This decision will likely have implications for other federal and state laws that restrict the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds to possess, carry, or use firearms, as well as for other categories of persons who may claim that their Second Amendment rights are infringed by age-based or other restrictions.

Given the importance and novelty of the issue and the split with the Tenth Circuit, it is likely that the Government will seek rehearing en banc or petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may be interested in reviewing the case, as it may wish to clarify the application of the Bruen framework. Alternatively, the Supreme Court may wait to see how other circuits apply the Bruen framework to similar challenges, and whether a more developed circuit split emerges. In any event, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Reese is a major contribution to the ongoing debate over the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment in the 21st century.