Connecticut Sued Over Handgun Ban for Young Adults

A 20-year-old Connecticut resident can get married (and divorced), be called for jury duty, sign contracts, and even serve in the state legislature, but they can’t legally purchase, carry, or even possess a handgun. 

Now the Second Amendment Foundation is challenging both the federal law that bars under-21s from purchasing handguns at retail as well as the state statutes prohibiting them from obtaining either a Pistol Permit (which allows the bearer to publicly carry) or a Handgun Eligibility Certificate (which is required to possess a pistol in the home). 

In Succow, et al v. Bondi, et al, plaintiffs Zachary Succow and Samuel Towne, along with the SAF and Connecticut Citizens Defense League, argue that the state and federal laws in question violate the Second Amendment by keeping young adults from possessing what the Supreme Court has described as “the quintessential self-defense weapon”. Yes, those adults younger than 21 might be able to purchase some firearms, but that was also the case for all adults in Washington, D.C. back when the District banned handguns, and the Supreme Court concluded that wasn’t enough to satisfy the protections of the Second Amendment. A 20-year-old is free to exercise every other enumerated right contained within the Constitution, but when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms there’s currently an asterisk attached, and that’s a big problem. 

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut argues that, “Second Amendment rights cannot be withheld from peaceable adults based on their age,” adding that the current laws “relegate the amendment’s guarantees to second-class status, which offends the very notion of the Constitution’s premise.” 

In their complaint, the plaintiffs note that several federal courts of appeals have concluded that age-based bans violate the Second Amendment. The Third Circuit, for example, has previously held that “18-to-20-year-olds are, like other subsets of the American public, presumptively among ‘the people’ to whom Second Amendment rights extend,” while the Eighth Circuit maintains that “[o]rdinary, law-abiding 18 to 20-year-old Minnesotans are unambiguously members of the people.” 

The Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have adopted a different stance, arguing that prohibiting under-21s from keeping and bearing at least some arms fits within the historical tradition of gun ownership. The Eleventh Circuit’s argument, however, rests on a bizarre argument involving the contract rights (or lack thereof) for minors back in 1791, while the Tenth Circuit concluded that Colorado’s ban on gun sales to under-21s is fine because age-based conditions on commercial sales of firearms fall beyond the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections; another asinine conclusion that could lead to anti-gun lawmakers prohibiting the commercial sale of firearms to anyone under the age of 40, 65, or 120 if they wanted. 

Succow v. Bondi joins a number of other age-based lawsuits percolating in federal court, including NRA v. Glass, which challenges the post-Parkland law enacted in Florida that prohibits under-21s from purchasing any firearm at retail. Ironically, that law was defended by Florida’s then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, who’s now the first named plaintiff in the SAF suit challenging both federal and state law. 

I have no doubt that Connecticut officials will defend the state statutes prohibiting young adults from applying for and receiving the permits required to keep and carry a handgun, but I’m curious to see what Bondi will do here. Will the DOJ decline to defend the federal statute that blocks the sale of handguns to adults under the age of 21, or will the AG once again go to bat for laws that have a direct impact on the Second Amendment rights of young adults?

The government’s response in Succow v. Bondi is due at about the same time the DOJ must respond to the NRA’s cert petition to the Supreme Court in NRA v. Glass, and I’m guessing both cases are going to be the subject of plenty of internal debate and discussion at the Department of Justice over the next few weeks. Under Bondi’s watch the DOJ has taken a proactive approach to defending the right to keep and bear arms, but these cases will be a big test to see just how far the department is willing to go when it comes federal statutes that have a chilling effect on our Second Amendment rights.