The Justice Department has told a federal appeals court that a decades-old law prohibiting licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to adults between the ages of 18 and 20 is unconstitutional, a significant shift in the government’s legal position. The filing, submitted this week in an ongoing federal case, argues that the age-based restriction cannot survive scrutiny under the Second Amendment.
What the DOJ Argued
In its brief, the department stated that adults aged 18 to 20 are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment and that the government has not demonstrated a historical tradition of restricting handgun sales specifically to this age group at the time the Constitution was ratified. The argument closely tracks the framework established by the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun laws to be consistent with the nation’s historical firearms regulations.
The law in question stems from the Gun Control Act of 1968, which set 21 as the minimum age for purchasing a handgun from a federally licensed dealer, while allowing 18-year-olds to buy rifles and shotguns. The restriction does not apply to private sales, which are legal in most states for buyers 18 and older, meaning the practical effect of the law has long been debated among legal scholars.
A Reversal in Position
The DOJ’s stance marks a departure from the government’s previous defense of the law in multiple circuit courts. In cases such as Reese v. ATF before the Fifth Circuit and Hirschfeld v. ATF before the Fourth Circuit, the department had argued the age restriction was a reasonable public safety measure, citing data on gun violence involving younger adults. Legal analysts say the new filing reflects an evolving interpretation of Second Amendment jurisprudence within the department since the Bruen decision reset the legal test for gun regulations nationwide.
“This is a direct continuation of how post-Bruen litigation has forced the government to re-examine which historical analogues actually support modern gun laws,” said one Second Amendment law scholar tracking the litigation.
Because the position was submitted in an active appellate case, the ultimate outcome now rests with the court, which could rule the law unconstitutional, uphold it, or send the matter back to a lower court for further review. Legal observers note that a ruling striking down the law could apply broadly or be limited to the specific plaintiffs and jurisdiction involved, depending on how the court frames its decision.
Reactions From Advocacy Groups
Gun-rights organizations, including groups that have filed similar challenges in multiple states, welcomed the DOJ’s filing as validation of their long-standing argument that young adults are unfairly denied a constitutional right afforded to those 21 and older. The National Rifle Association and other plaintiffs in related suits have argued that 18-to-20-year-olds can serve in the military, vote, and enter legal contracts, and should not face additional barriers to purchasing handguns.
Gun-safety advocates pushed back sharply, pointing to research linking the 18-to-20 age range to elevated rates of gun violence, including mass shootings and suicides. Groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords have previously submitted briefs defending the restriction, arguing that data-driven age limits are consistent with public safety traditions recognized throughout American legal history, even if not identical to specific 18th-century statutes.
What Happens Next
The appellate court has not yet issued a ruling in the case central to the DOJ’s filing. If the court agrees with the department’s position, federally licensed dealers could be required to sell handguns to buyers as young as 18, a change that would affect purchasing rules across all states, since federal law currently sets the baseline age regardless of individual state statutes.
Some states, including several with stricter gun laws, have independently set their own age minimums for handgun purchases that could remain in place even if the federal restriction is struck down. Legal experts say a final resolution may ultimately require intervention from the Supreme Court, given the split among circuit courts on how to apply the Bruen historical-tradition test to age-based firearm restrictions.
The case adds to a broader pattern of litigation reshaping U.S. gun laws in the years following Bruen, as lower courts and the DOJ continue to reassess which regulations meet the historical standard now required to justify limits on Second Amendment rights.
For more on how emerging technology and policy shifts are affecting everyday life, see NarwhalTV’s coverage of Canada’s invitation to join the EU as an associate member and the ongoing debate over AI-driven workweek reforms.
