Appeals Court Weighs Florida Law That Bars People Under 21 From Buying Rifles

A federal appeals court on Tuesday wrestled with the constitutionality of Florida’s law barring individuals under 21 from purchasing rifles and long guns.

The Legal Battle Over Florida’s Age Limit

The age restriction was introduced in 2018 after 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz used a semiautomatic rifle to kill 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Although federal law already prohibits those under 21 from purchasing handguns, Florida expanded this to include long guns, triggering a lawsuit by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA challenged the state law, claiming it violated the Second Amendment. A lower court upheld the law, and a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of the state. However, the NRA requested an “en banc” hearing, prompting all judges on the 11th Circuit to reconsider the case.

Conflicting Supreme Court Precedents

Tuesday’s hearing in Atlanta focused on how to apply recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gun rights. A key case referenced was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which established that gun laws must align with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This precedent requires modern laws to be consistent with regulations from the time the Second Amendment was adopted.

John Parker Sweeney, the lawyer representing the NRA, argued that the Florida law is unconstitutional because it has no historical precedent. He emphasized that in the 18th century when the Second Amendment was drafted, there was no tradition of restricting firearm purchases by those under 21.

However, Judge Robin Rosenbaum pressed Sweeney on this point, noting that at the time of the nation’s founding, individuals under 21 had few legal rights, including the right to purchase firearms independently. She highlighted that most young adults worked on family farms and depended on their parents for financial decisions, including the acquisition of firearms. “They couldn’t sue, they couldn’t do a lot of things,” Rosenbaum said, implying that 18-year-olds today may not have the same claim to gun rights.

Parental Responsibility and Adult Rights

The judges also debated whether Florida’s age restriction was consistent with historical firearm regulations. Christopher Baum, representing the state of Florida, argued that the law aligns with the principle of regulating access to firearms for those under 21. He cited historical instances where minors only had access to guns under supervision, whether in the militia or under parental authority.

However, other judges questioned the justification for treating 18-to-20-year-olds as legal adults in some areas—such as renting an apartment—but not when purchasing firearms. Judge Barbara Lagoa noted that in Florida, 18-year-olds are legal adults, and parents no longer have any legal responsibility for them. She criticized the state’s argument that the law ensures parental oversight of young adults’ firearm access, pointing out that it contradicts the legal status of adulthood.

Ultimately, the judges sparred over whether historical precedents supported Florida’s law. While some emphasized that restrictions existed in the past, others argued that young adults had access to firearms, albeit under supervision. The case continues as both sides navigate complex constitutional questions about gun rights in modern America.