Ninth Circuit ‘reaffirms’ 2nd Amendment rights for young people

American colonists carried that tradition forward by establishing militias and requiring young adults aged 18 to 20 to show up for duty with their own guns.

Nelson wrote that at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 that mandated militia duty and firearm possession for young adults.

“The Second Amendment refers to the militia, and young adults had to be in the militia and bring their own firearms,” he added. “This reference implies at least that young adults needed to have their own firearms."

The majority also found the ban is a severe burden on the right of self-defense in the home. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller already bars young adults from buying a handgun, “the quintessential self-defense weapon,” Nelson wrote, and “this ban now stops them from buying semiautomatic rifles, leaving only shotguns. So handguns aside, this law takes away one
of the two remaining practical options for self-defense in the home, and leaves young adults with a self-defense weapon which is not ideal or even usable in many scenarios. That is a severe burden.”

Lee penned a strongly worded concurrence reiterating that the state’s good intentions in promoting public safety should not trump an enumerated constitutional right.

“[W]e do not impinge on the First Amendment based on the outlier actions of a few who may abuse that right. Nor should we with the Second Amendment,” he wrote, adding, “Simply put, we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable.”

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, a Bill Clinton appointee who joined the panel by designation from the Southern District of New York, agreed with Nelson and Lee that Judge Lorenz did not err in declining to enjoin California’s requirement that young adults obtain hunting license to purchase a long gun, but dissented from his colleagues on the semiautomatic rifle ban.

Stein said neither of the laws are categorial bans, and are consistent with the well-established custom of restricting the access of certain groups to firearms for public safety reasons.

“While I do not dispute that the semiautomatic rifle regulation places burdens on young adults who wish to purchase or otherwise receive semiautomatic centerfire rifles from FFLs [federally licensed firearms dealers], I do not find that it is a ‘severe burden’ on young adults’ Second Amendment rights,” since young people have other options for self-defense, Stein wrote in dissent.

Stein said the fact that young adults commit a disproportionate amount of violent gun crimes, as well as their relative immaturity, is enough to show that the regulation should stand.

Esther Sanchez-Gomez, Senior Litigation Attorney with Giffords Law Center who filed an amicus brief in the case, called the opinion a "dangerous misinterpretation" of the Second Amendment, and took issue with a footnote in Lee's dissent that says there have been a "minuscule" percentage of mass shootings in the U.S.; 170 since 1966.

"Gun violence’s toll on our communities is not a “minuscule' problem and today’s decision will only exacerbate an already deadly problem," Sanchez-Gomez said in a statement to Courthouse News.

Sanchez-Gomez praised Judge Stein's dissent saying it "calls out many of the majority’s failings."

"While dismissing the significant number of historical laws limiting young adult firearm possession—and acknowledging that the age of majority at the founding was 21—the court nevertheless concluded that the Second Amendment historically protected the rights of young adults to possess firearms," she said. "In considering the law’s 'fit' with its stated purpose, the court recognized how young people are disproportionately involved in violent crime and that this law would promote public safety, but went out of its way to legislate from the bench, suggesting that the law should have incorporated individualized assessments."

Sanchez-Gomez said the opinion will be problematic for lower courts hearing similar cases, but "the 9th Circuit may have an opportunity to correct this result if it takes the case en banc."

Haley Proctor, a lawyer who argued for the plaintiffs, did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in an email that his office is reviewing the decision. "California will continue to take all necessary steps to prevent and reduce gun violence," they said. "We remain committed to defending California’s commonsense gun laws, which save lives and make our communities safer."

Follow @MariaDinzeo

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit