Do adults under the age of 21 have the right to keep and bear arms?
Since they’re adults, they should. After all, it’s one thing to say children can’t buy firearms, but people who are responsible for themselves in pretty much every other aspect of their lives are a different matter.
Yet many places restrict those under 21 from actually enjoying the full benefits of their Second Amendment rights.
In the District of Columbia, which is a microcosm of how little gun control actually does to stop crime, they have a total gun ban for those under 21. That ban has been challenged and was recently ruled constitutional. The local DC appeals court–not the federal appeals court in DC, just for clarification–just upheld the ruling with an…interesting argument.
The DC Court of Appeals today upheld the district’s under-21 gun ban, saying that “assum[ing] without deciding that eighteen-to-twenty-one-year-olds with no criminal history are part of ‘the people’ that the Second Amendment protects,” they do not have the right to purchase,… pic.twitter.com/4k3ATCtECa
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 4, 2025
So, by operating under the assumption that adults under 21 are, in fact, part of “the people” covered by the Second Amendment, they still find a gun ban constitutional?
How does that make sense?
As the FPC put it later:
Anti-gun courts be like “even if we assume you have Second Amendment rights… you don’t.” https://t.co/jd7lm7IcA4
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 4, 2025
Right?
The sad part is that I see the so-called logic being employed. If the right to own guns implies the right to purchase them, which many of us have argued more than once, as have the courts, then the inverse would seem to be true. If you don’t have a right to buy them, as was ruled previously, then the implication is that you don’t have a right to own them.
Hence, the DC restrictions being upheld.
But NRA v Bondi, which is the case cited, was an 11th Circuit decision, not a Supreme Court decision, so I’m not sure about the wisdom of basing everything on that, especially as the DC Circuit Court of Appeals covers the DC area. Of course, it’s not like that court would rule differently.
Personally, I think the 11th Circuit blew it.
While there is a legitimate case for the constitutionality of age limits, the argument that people who are old enough to enlist, sign contracts, and vote in our nation’s elections is bizarre to me. Especially as some want to lower the voting age still further, all while saying younger people are too reckless and irresponsible to exercise a fundamental, constitutionally protected right.
And then to extrapolate it out to justifying a ban on even the possession of firearms by people in that age group is absolutely horrifying to me. Especially as the age limits are often defended as saying these folks still have their Second Amendment rights, they just can’t buy a gun. This, however, makes it very clear where that argument can and will lead.
Here’s hoping someone steps in and lowers a much-needed smackdown on this absolute BS.
Editor’s note: Politicians in DC and around the country try to infringe on our rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms.
Help us shine a light on these attacks. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT for 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
