NRA asks full 11th Circuit to dump Florida age limit for gun buys

ATLANTA (CN) — The National Rifle Association asked an en banc panel of the 11th Circuit on Tuesday to overturn a federal judge’s decision to uphold a law barring Floridians under the age of 21 from buying rifles and other long guns.

An NRA attorney told the 12-judge panel that the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act is unconstitutional because it does not align with the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v Bruen . The landmark ruling requires gun control laws to be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The NRA has argued the Florida law violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and flouts longstanding tradition permitting young adults to buy guns.

The law, which was passed after a 19-year-old gunman killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018, prohibits people under 21 from buying a long gun but does not ban them from receiving them as gifts. Federal law already requires a person to be 21 years old to buy a handgun.

An attorney for the state encouraged the 11th Circuit to uphold the law, arguing that it is similar to historical laws restricting those under 21 from buying guns for public safety and other reasons.

“Florida’s law is consistent with the principles underlying this nation’s history and tradition of regulating firearms,” Florida deputy solicitor general Christopher Baum said. “That tradition stretches from the founding [era] through Reconstruction.”

A three-judge panel of the appeals court affirmed a lower court’s decision to uphold the law last year, reasoning that the restriction on long gun sales for 18-to-20-year-olds comports with Reconstruction-era gun regulations passed after the ratification of the 14th Amendment that made the Second Amendment applicable to the states.

The decision was withdrawn after an en banc hearing was granted.

Judges during Tuesday’s hearing were divided in weighing the state’s historical justifications of the law against the NRA’s claims that the rights of legal adults are being violated.

Although there was no direct restriction on a minor’s ability to buy a gun at the time of the nation’s founding, U.S. Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum noted people under the age of 21 could not “effectively or practically” buy guns.

“The problem is that the common law at that time gave no rights to anyone under 21, including the practical ability to purchase a firearm,” the Barack Obama appointee said, adding that people under 21 worked on family farms and did not have their own sources of income.

Eighteenth century common law voided any contract entered by someone under 21, preventing minors from using credit to buy guns. Parents were also legally responsible for buying guns for people under 21 who served in the military, Rosenbaum said.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, chimed in to point out that the law against minors buying guns on credit was, like the modern-day law, merely a “limitation on their right to purchase.”

Arguing on behalf of the NRA, attorney John Sweeney of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings said the law voiding minor contracts is not the same as a prohibition on the purchase of firearms and cannot be used to justify the Florida law.

“On one hand it’s the responsibility of minors to be able to stand by their contracts. On the other hand it’s concern about the use of firearms,” Sweeney said.

Sweeney urged the appeals court to block the law, saying that while people in the founding era “didn’t trust minors with credit they certainly trusted them with firearms.”

But Baum told the panel the laws are similar. Both were written to apply temporarily until someone reaches the age of 22 and each restricts gun sales out of concern for young adults’ immature decision-making abilities, the attorney said.

Bill Clinton-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge Charles Wilson appeared to agree, saying the Florida Legislature could have relied on data “that suggests people under the age of 21 who purchase firearms are more dangerous to their fellow Floridians than those who are over the age of 21.”

Questions from two Trump-appointed judges steered the arguments away from an examination of historical parallels. U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa said the discussion ignored the fact that people over the age of 18 are now recognized as legal adults.

“One of the issues I have is the ban ensures that parents continue to play a key role in supervising and facilitating 18-to-20-year-olds’ access to firearms,” Lagoa said. “The issue is an 18-year-old in the state of Florida or anywhere in the 50 states is a legal adult and parents have no role or responsibility.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Brasher sided with Lagoa. The Trump appointee said people under 22 years old were subject to voidable contracts in the founding era only because they were legally recognized as children in their parents’ care.

“Florida now has cut 18-to-21-year-olds loose and said you’re on your own," Brasher said. “But then Florida is trying to treat them as children just for the purpose of firearm purchases. That’s where it seems there’s a mismatch between the how and the why of these older laws and the how and why of Florida’s law.”

The panel did not indicate when it would issue a decision in the matter.

Follow @KaylaGoggin_CNS