Eleventh Circuit Uses Bizarre Arguments, Ignores History to Uphold Ban on Gun Sales to Adults Under 21

Courts across the country have split on the question of when, exactly, our right to keep and bear arms kicks in, and now the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has reached its conclusion: “minors” over the age of 18 can be denied their ability to purchase a firearm at retail without impacting their Second Amendment rights. 

The appellate court handed down its 8-4 decision on Friday in a challenge to a Florida law brought by the National Rifle Association. Lawmakers in the state raised the age to purchase a firearm at retail after the Parkland shootings in 2018, though the law still allows adults under the age of 21 to possess firearms and to be gifted a gun by a family member. 

Writing for the majority, Chief Judge William Pryor wrote that “the Florida law is consistent with our regulatory tradition in why and how it burdens the right of minors to keep and bear arms,” adding, “because minors have yet to reach the age of reason, the Florida law prohibits them from purchasing firearms, yet it allows them to receive firearms from their parents or another responsible adult.”

The problem, of course, is that 18-year-olds aren’t minors. If they were then every strip club in Florida should be shut down immediately for child exploitation. Even if the age of majority was 21 back in 1791 it’s 18 today, and no other enumerated right is denied to young adults; a point succinctly made by Judge Andrew Brasher in his dissent. 

In Florida, the age of adulthood is eighteen. An eighteen-year-old in Florida is emancipated from the care and custody of his or her parents, and they in turn are no longer responsible for his or her care and support. Eighteen-year-olds are subject to different and higher criminal penalties than children. And, at that age, a person may be sued and held liablefor breach of contract. 

Not only does this purchase restriction disarm a class of law abiding, mentally competent adults, it also disproportionately disarms adults who, in the words of the district court, “actually need firearms to defend themselves.” Because Florida allows young adults to possess and use guns if they can get them, the people most affected by the purchase restriction are adults who want to legally obtain a firearm but lack the connections to get one for free. As the district court explained, these adults “are likely independent” and “likely to have families and children of their own.” 

For example, the restriction on purchase means that a “20-year-old single mother living on her own [will] be unable to obtain a firearm for self-defense,” but an eighteen-year-old high schooler who lives with his parents can still lawfully get a firearm from them or an older sibling.

Brasher also pointed out that even at the time the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, the ability to acquire a firearm at the age of 18 was the norm. Militia members were expected to bring their own rifles or muskets with them, which certainly suggests that the right to keep and bear encompasses the right to purchase a firearm. Again, quoting Brasher’s dissent:

Like any other right, the right to bear arms is not unlimited. But the constant through all these regulations, from long before the Founding and enduring long afterward, is that the public expected those between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one to have access to firearms. “The meaning of the [Second Amendment] undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 617 (quoting Thomas M. Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America 271 (1880)). Unsurprisingly, then, there were no Founding-era laws prohibiting young adults from purchasing any firearm at all, much less anything like the total, criminal ban in Fla Stat. § 790.065(13).

The majority and concurring opinions are chock full of arguments that, taken to their logical conclusions, recall some of the worst infringements on civil liberties in our nation’s long history. The majority suggests that the brains of young adults aren’t fully formed and therefore 18-to-20-year-olds are incapable of making mature, rational decisions; an argument that hearkens back to those deployed in defense of laws denying entire classes of people of their fundamental rights, including citizenship.

The majority opinion stretches the bounds of credulity by asserting that, since young adults (again, “minors” in the eyes of the judges) can receive a gun through a gift that any Second Amendment right they might have remains intact. The Florida law poses an insurmountable burden to those young adults who may not have family in the state, or who aren’t on good terms with their parents. More importantly, though, is the fact that an 18-year-old doesn’t have to beg permission from mommy and daddy before they can vote, get married, serve in the military, sign a contract, or any other privilege or responsibility that comes with adulthood. 

This is an absolutely atrocious decision, and one that substitutes the whims and rationale of the majority for any hard facts about the national tradition of gun ownership as it applies to young adults. The only good news is that the Florida legislature is already considering a repeal of the under-21 ban on gun purchases and the appellate courts are definitely split on the issue. That ups the odds of the Supreme Court granting cert to one of these cases in the near future and clarifying once more that the Second Amendment isn’t a second class right, but one enjoyed by we the people… including the millions of young adults among us.