This key ruling came from Senior Judge Robert Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He already ruled in May that the ban was unconstitutional.
Federal law prohibits federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) from selling handguns or handgun ammunition to individuals under 21. Plaintiffs under this age filed suit on the grounds that the Second Amendment protected their rights to purchase weapons as legal and law-abiding adults.
The ATF argued that the plaintiffs were still able to acquire a handgun from their parents or through a private sale. That did not sway Judge Payne, who instead ruled that the federal law intruded on their constitutional rights.
At that time, he asked both sides in the case to agree on a way to issue an injunction.
They could not reach an agreement, however, so Payne backed the plaintiffs and issued a nationwide injunction against the prohibition.
In Fraser v. ATF, Payne declared the court moved to protect Second Amendment rights for all law-abiding U.S. citizens between 18 and 21. “People between the ages of 18 and 21 in the Eastern District of Virginia suffer an equal burden as people of the same age in the Southern District of New York, the Central District of California or any other district. The Government’s policies affect — and harm — each of them equally.”
In this light, the George H.W. Bush appointee certified that all young adults in that age group could be considered plaintiffs in the class-action filing. Under his ruling, they will receive the same protections.
The one negative is that Judge Payne also issued a stay on his Wednesday ruling that permitted the Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce the ban on young adults purchasing handguns while it appeals his decision.
The DOJ had no comment on the ruling.
Payne’s judgment continued a remarkable string of court victories by defenders of the Second Amendment. All have come in the wake of last year’s monumental New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
This 6-3 ruling established new parameters for gun control legislation across the country. Laws will only be allowed if they fit into the history and tradition of firearms regulation in the U.S. This sent jurists scrambling through founding-era statutes for precedent and gave new hope to those resisting government overreach into firearms.
Federal courts responded by striking down several laws that have no basis in the nation’s history or tradition.
In the current case, Judge Payne declared that the federal law prohibiting handgun sales to 18-to-20-year-olds is simply not supported by precedent.
In May, he wrote, “The government’s argument is predicated on a limited, and erroneous reading, of the fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects the right to purchase, not just to possess, a firearm.”
Applying clear logic, Payne asserted that the Founding Fathers meant to safeguard the right to purchase a firearm. This, of course, falls in line with the right to keep and bear arms. Without the ability to purchase a weapon, the ability to keep or bear them is mostly nullified.
“Not simply protecting the heartland of the preserved right, the Second Amendment protects the environs surrounding it to prevent any encroachment on the core protections. Thus, by virtue of the word ‘infringed,’ the Second Amendment’s protective textual embrace includes the conduct necessary to exercise the right (‘to keep and bear’) and that, as explained above, includes the right to purchase arms so that one can keep and bear them.”
If Payne’s decision is upheld on appeal, it will mark a clear victory for gun rights and remove a barrier to exercising them freely.
