Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol
127 F.4th 583 (2025)
Rule of Law:
The Second Amendment protects the right of eighteen-to-twenty-year-old adults to purchase handguns from Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), as federal statutes prohibiting such sales are inconsistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation and this age group's compulsory militia service at the founding.
Facts:
- Federal law (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1)) and associated ATF regulations prohibit Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) from selling handguns to individuals under twenty-one years of age.
- These laws do not prohibit eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds from owning, possessing, or carrying handguns, nor do they prevent them from acquiring handguns in the unlicensed, private market or as gifts.
- Caleb Reese and Emily Naquin are individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one.
- Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and Louisiana Shooting Association are non-profit organizations whose members include individuals under 21 who wish to purchase handguns from FFLs and FFLs who are prohibited from selling to them.
- At the nation's founding, the Militia Act of 1792 required able-bodied white male citizens between eighteen and forty-five years of age to enroll in the militia and provide their own firearms.
- Colonial and founding-era militia laws generally set the minimum age for service at eighteen, and in some cases even lower, with expectations that these individuals would be armed.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants (Caleb Reese, et al.) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), its Director, and the U.S. Attorney General, challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) and attendant regulations.
- The government moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, contending that Appellants lacked Article III standing and failed to state a claim, while Appellants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The district court found that Appellants had standing, but granted the government’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), assuming Second Amendment coverage but finding the prohibition consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, relying considerably on the Fifth Circuit’s prior analysis in NRA I.
- Appellants timely appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- After initial oral argument, this appeal was abated pending the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, followed by supplemental briefing and another round of oral argument.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), which prohibit Federal Firearms Licensees from selling handguns to individuals between eighteen and twenty years of age, violate the Second Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Edith H. Jones
Yes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) violate the Second Amendment because they unconstitutionally infringe upon the right of eighteen-to-twenty-year-old adults to keep and bear arms, as these prohibitions are inconsistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court first determined that the Second Amendment's plain text covers the conduct of purchasing firearms, reasoning that the right to "keep and bear arms" implicitly protects the corollary act of purchasing them, particularly from FFLs, which represent the most prevalent and accessible market. To suggest otherwise would allow for incremental limitations that could displace the right entirely. Next, the court held that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds are part of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment. It noted that the Amendment's plain text lacks age restrictions and that the term "the people" in other Bill of Rights provisions unambiguously refers to all members of the political community. The court rejected the government's argument that civic/voting rights at the founding limited membership in "the people," as this would nonsensically exclude groups like women, non-landowners, and non-white individuals. Crucially, the 1792 Militia Act explicitly required 18-year-olds to enroll in the militia and furnish their own arms, demonstrating that they were considered capable and expected to bear arms at the founding. Finally, applying the Bruen historical-tradition test, the court found that the government failed to demonstrate a historical tradition of firearm regulation consistent with the modern ban. Founding-era "analogues" cited by the government, such as university firearm bans or parental consent requirements for militia enrollment, were deemed inapt due to differences in their "how" and "why" (e.g., in loco parentis authority, general civic duty exclusions, or implied expectations of armament). The government's claim that 18-20 year olds pose a "special danger of misuse" was rejected as it lacked the individualized judicial determinations of threat required by Rahimi. The court also noted that founding-era practices like posse comitatus duty often required young men (as young as 15 or 16) to be armed for public safety. While some late 19th-century statutes restricted firearm access for those under 21, the court emphasized that Bruen cautions against giving undue weight to post-ratification history that contradicts the original meaning of the constitutional text. The consistent evidence of 18-20 year olds' militia service at the founding outweighs later, contradictory evidence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of Second Amendment protection to individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty, directly overturning prior Fifth Circuit precedent (NRA I) that had upheld age-based handgun sale bans. By rigorously applying the Bruen historical-tradition test and rejecting late-19th century analogues, the court reaffirms the primacy of founding-era understanding for defining constitutional rights. This ruling sets a precedent for challenging other age-based firearm restrictions and emphasizes that a lack of historical justification, particularly contradicting evidence of compulsory militia service, renders such bans unconstitutional. It underscores that membership in 'the people' for Second Amendment purposes is not limited by voting rights or other civic duties applicable at the founding.
