The federal government lost its defense of the handgun ban for young adults in the Fifth Circuit, declined to appeal that loss to the Supreme Court, and is now attempting to preserve as much of the unconstitutional restriction as possible.
The Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association filed an opening brief on June 22, asking the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to correct a district court injunction that protects only a fraction of the organizations’ affected members.
The case, now captioned FPC v. ATF and formerly known as Reese v. ATF, concerns the federal ban preventing federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns and handgun ammunition to law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20.
Although young adults may acquire handguns through limited alternative means, the federal government bars them from using the principal lawful commercial market available to other adults. SAF and FPC properly describe that restriction for what it is: a federal handgun purchase ban targeting young adults.
Young Adults Already Won
In January 2025, a unanimous three-judge Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the federal handgun ban for young adults violates the Second Amendment.
The court held that 18-to-20-year-old adults are among “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected. It also found that the government produced “scant evidence” of any comparable Founding-era restriction. That should have ended the matter.
The federal government could have petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decision, but it declined. The case instead returned to the district court for entry of judgment consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.
That is where the government began fighting over who would receive the benefit of the victory.
The district court eventually entered an injunction protecting only members of the plaintiff organizations who live in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi, the three states within the Fifth Circuit. The injunction also covers only people who were members when the judgment was entered on January 27, 2026.
Every other affected SAF and FPC member remains subject to a federal handgun ban already held unconstitutional in litigation brought by their own organizations.
“What the government has said outright here is ‘we acknowledge that the Fifth Circuit has held the law to be unconstitutional, but we want to still enforce it against almost everyone,’” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said. “The government has done everything possible to keep disenfranchising thousands of adults through ridiculous demands on the plaintiff organizations, all to no avail.”
That blunt assessment accurately captures the government’s position. It lost on the Second Amendment but still wants to deny most successful plaintiffs any meaningful relief.
An Injunction Designed to Disappear
The January 27 membership cutoff makes the judgment even more absurd. Because the case concerns 18-to-20-year-olds, every person presently protected by the injunction will eventually turn 21. As those members age out, the protected population will steadily decline until the injunction provides relief to virtually no one.
Meanwhile, young adults who later join SAF or FPC will remain subject to the same unconstitutional ban.
The appellants argue that this arbitrary expiration mechanism defeats the purpose of associational standing. Organizations are allowed to sue on behalf of their members precisely because forcing every injured individual to file a separate lawsuit would be costly, inefficient, and unnecessary.
The Fifth Circuit previously allowed the organizations to establish their continuing standing by identifying a new member after the original individual plaintiffs turned 21. It makes little sense to recognize changing membership to keep the lawsuit alive, then deny relief to similarly situated members who join later.
Nationwide Relief Is Not Universal Relief
The government has attempted to place the requested injunction under the politically loaded label of a “universal injunction.” The appellants explain why that characterization is wrong.
SAF, FPC, and LSA are not asking the court to prohibit enforcement against every person in the United States. They are requesting protection for their affected members, the people on whose behalf they brought and won the case.
The Supreme Court made the distinction clear in Trump v. CASA. A universal injunction protects everyone, including nonparties. A traditional party-specific injunction may operate nationwide while protecting only the parties before the court.
In other words, the critical question is whom the injunction protects, not where those people live.
SAF and FPC have members throughout the country. Limiting relief to three states leaves the victorious organizations and most of their affected members without a complete remedy.
The government cannot escape a judgment simply because members of the organizations it lost to live outside the Fifth Circuit.
Government Wants a Paper Victory
The appellants warn that preserving the district court’s limitations would encourage repetitive litigation. Gun-rights organizations could be forced to file the same lawsuit in multiple jurisdictions and return to court repeatedly as young members age out and new members join.
That would waste judicial resources while allowing the government to keep enforcing an unconstitutional law.
“We have been fighting this absurd handgun purchase ban on adults who are 18-20 years old for more than half a decade now,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said. “There is no doubt adults in this age range are part of ‘the People,’ and it’s high time the government stopped fighting the inevitable.”
“The Trump Administration is fighting as hard as it can to continue violating the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. Even though the Fifth Circuit already held that these bans are unconstitutional, the government is trying to limit the decision’s reach so it can keep disarming peaceable adults across the country.” FPC President Brandon Combs said. “This is how the United States government celebrates 250 years of American independence—by acting like the tyrants we defeated. FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue Fighting Forward until this ban is eliminated and the rights of all peaceable adults are fully restored.”
The organizations are asking the Fifth Circuit to remove both limitations and protect every affected member, regardless of residence or when that person joins.
Young adults already won the constitutional argument. The federal government should not be permitted to turn that victory into a judgment that protects almost no one and eventually expires on its own.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
from https://ift.tt/BA2ln7q
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment