Fourth Circuit shoots down challenge to age-based handgun sales restriction 

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) —The Fourth Circuit found Wednesday that a federal regulation prohibiting the commercial sale of handguns to those under 21 is constitutionally valid, despite efforts by a group of 18 to 20-year-olds who say they should be able to buy handguns.

“From English common law to America’s founding and beyond, our regulatory tradition has permitted restrictions on the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21,” U.S. Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote for the majority.

The ruling reverses the judgments of lower courts in Virginia and West Virginia granted to the group of six young men who filed the class action. The lower courts found the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 conflicted with the Second Amendment.

But Wilkinson and U.S. Circuit Judge Toby Heytens agreed with the government’s argument that early state legislatures established an age qualification of 21 for citizens to exercise several rights, and that several states passed laws restricting handgun sales to young adults in the 19th century when handguns became more lethal and widespread.

The 1968 act came after Congress studied a connection between handgun access to the “emotionally immature” and “thrill-bent juveniles and minors” and youthful criminal behavior. The provision allows those aged 18 to 20 to possess handguns and even purchase them in private sales or receive them as gifts, but it prohibits any federal firearm licensee from selling to them.

The challenge arose after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , a landmark ruling that overturned New York’s concealed-carry law. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote then in a 6-3 majority opinion that any regulation on the right to bear arms had to be rooted in the “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” regardless of whether that restriction served a public interest, like reducing gun violence.

The Bruen ruling requires the government to show whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the Second Amendment right and whether that burden is comparably justified.

Wilkinson relied on the infancy doctrine, a principle in English contract law that was adopted in America, which holds that individuals under 21 are considered infants and are therefore not bound by their contracts.

“Whether he faces criminal penalties or a law that transforms his sales into free giveaways, a rational merchant is highly unlikely to sell a gun to a minor,” Wilkinson wrote. “Both were motivated by a recognition that individuals under the age of 21 lack good judgment and reason."

U.S. Circuit Judge Marvin Quattlebaum dissented from the two-judge majority. Quattlebaum reasoned that the doctrine is not an appropriate analogy because, while the doctrine burdens the rights of sellers, the 1968 Act burdens the rights of purchasers. Quattlebaum wrote that the doctrine serves a paternalistic interest while the prohibition serves a public safety interest.

“I recognize that to many, banning sales of handguns to those under 21 makes good sense. I appreciate that sentiment, especially during a time when gun violence is a problem in our country,” the Donald Trump appointee wrote. “But that is a policy argument. As judges, we interpret law rather than make policy.”

The consequences of the doctrine and the act are also significantly different, according to Quattlebaum. Licensees who sell to those under 21 risk prison time and fines.

“In a worst-case scenario, the merchant returned the money and got the gun back, losing only the time he took to sell the gun to the 18-year-old. Refunds are a standard part of commercial life with benefits to both retailers and consumers,” Quattlebaum said of the doctrine. “They are not to be seriously compared with the threat of prison.”

Wilkinson countered that the doctrine, like the 1968 act, made it unlikely a merchant would sell a handgun to those under 21.

“Even if an infant had enough coin to buy a gun, merchants would have been unwilling to sell because they bore the risk that the minor would rescind the transaction and be entitled to a full refund under the infancy contract doctrine,” Wilkinson said.

The would-be handgun purchasers relied on the Militia Act of 1792 as proof of the founders’ willingness to trust those under 21 with guns. The Militia Act required non-disabled white men between the ages of 18 and 45 to enroll in the militia. The act further required militiamen to provide themselves with a good musket or firelock.

Wilkinson said that the Militia Act differs because it allowed for the possession rather than the purchasing of firearms. Wilkinson said that many young men used family guns in the course of militia work.

Heytens offered a concurring opinion, attempting to illustrate the result of the young men’s logic.

“Do 16- and 17-year-olds have a constitutional right to buy handguns?” the Joe Biden appointee asked. “The plaintiffs are on the horns of a dilemma, because their arguments for why 18-year-olds have a constitutional right to buy handguns suggest that younger people do too — a startling result that the plaintiffs seek to obscure and for which they offer no defense.”

Elliott Harding of Harding Counsel in Charlottesville, Virginia, representing the Virginia-based young men, emphasized that Heyten’s opinion goes beyond the breadth of the current case.

“That’s definitely not the case we brought,” Harding said. “If that’s being cited as a justification for denying the rights of 18 to 21-year-olds who are lawful adults that are otherwise qualified to purchase firearms, we think it is a red herring and argues well beyond the point that is presented to the court when we would reserve we don’t intend to make that argument. We haven’t made that argument. That’s an argument for a different day, for a different class of plaintiffs, and that’s not what the court was asked to consider."

Harding indicated that his clients would swiftly appeal the majority’s ruling.