Citing gun restrictions dating to the Reconstruction era, a federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a 2018 Florida law that prevents sales of rifles and other long guns to people under age 21.
The law, passed in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Parkland鈥檚 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, is one of the only firearm restrictions approved by the Legislature in decades. Federal law already prohibited the sale of handguns to people under 21.
Lawmakers passed the measure weeks after Nikolas Cruz, who was 19 at the time, used an AR-15 rifle to kill 17 students and staff members and injure 17 others at the Broward County school.
The National Rifle Association quickly filed a federal lawsuit, arguing in part that the law imposes an unconstitutional restriction on the Second Amendment rights of people under 21.
Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker rejected the challenge in 2021, ruling that previous court opinions have given states leeway to impose Second Amendment restrictions in some instances. The NRA appealed, and a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments last year.
Thursday鈥檚 decision relied heavily on guidance from a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which said gun laws must be 鈥渃onsistent with this nation鈥檚 historical tradition of firearm regulation.鈥�
The history shows Florida鈥檚 2018 law is consistent with such tradition, Judge Robin Rosenbaum wrote in an opinion joined fully by Judge Anne Conway. Judge Charles Wilson wrote a short concurring opinion.
The ruling mapped out the historical record on age restrictions since the Reconstruction era. It also said the Florida law allows people under 21 to possess or use guns, such as guns that they receive as gifts.
鈥淭o begin with, the act is no more restrictive than its forebearers: While the act burdens 18-to-20-year-olds鈥� rights to buy firearms, unlike its Reconstruction era analogues, it still leaves 18-to-20-year-olds free to acquire any type of firearm 鈥� including 鈥榯he quintessential self-defense weapon,鈥� the handgun 鈥� in legal ways, as long as they don鈥檛 buy the weapons,鈥� Rosenbaum wrote.
In the mid-1800s, Rosenbaum wrote, Alabama and Tennessee laws prohibited selling, loaning or giving guns to people under 21, which was the age of majority in both states at the time. A similar law passed by Kentucky in 1859 included an exception allowing parents to give deadly weapons to their children.
The Alabama and Tennessee laws imposed 鈥渁 greater burden on the right to keep and bear arms than does the (Florida) act, which leaves 18-to-20-year-olds free to obtain firearms through legal means other than purchasing,鈥� Rosenbaum wrote.
The Kentucky law and the Florida law both 鈥減rovide pathways鈥� to acquire weapons, Rosenbaum, who was appointed to the appeals court by former President Barack Obama, added.
鈥淎s for the 鈥榳hy鈥� of those historical regulations, it is also 鈥榬elevantly similar鈥� to the 鈥榳hy鈥� of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act (the 2018 law). Both 鈥榬egulations burden a law-abiding citizen鈥檚 right to armed self-defense鈥� for the same reason: enhancing public safety,鈥� the 40-page ruling said. The Florida law also aims to enhance public safety by addressing gun violence at schools, a goal 鈥渢hat is well in keeping with traditional firearm regulations,鈥� Rosenbaum wrote.
The NRA has argued, in part, that the age restriction infringes on Second Amendment rights of young adults who have been authorized to use weapons when they serve in the military or in law enforcement.
The NRA 鈥渋s currently assessing our appeal options鈥� and is disappointed in Thursday鈥檚 decision, spokeswoman Amy Hunter said in an email.
鈥淭he NRA supports the right of law-abiding adults to possess firearms for self-defense, hunting and sport shooting. There is no reason why an adult who is old enough to defend his or her country should be restricted from exercising their Second Amendment rights,鈥� Hunter said. 鈥淭he NRA also looks forward to the Florida Legislature addressing the issue and removing this unconstitutional ban.鈥�
The panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court disagreed with the NRA鈥檚 arguments related to people under 21 being able to use guns in the military or in law enforcement.
鈥淭he NRA鈥檚 conclusion is incorrect. The NRA mistakes a legal obligation for a right,鈥� Rosenbaum wrote.
Thursday鈥檚 ruling came days after two Republican House members filed a bill (HB 1543) that would remove the age restriction. Hunter鈥檚 email pointed to the bill, which Wilson also addressed in a concurring opinion.
Wilson agreed 鈥渨ith the judgment given the law as it stands today鈥� but said he would have waited until the end of the legislative session before issuing a ruling because passage of the bill 鈥渕ay render the issue moot.鈥�
But in a lengthy footnote, the main opinion said the case 鈥渞emains very much alive.鈥� State lawmakers might not pass the bill, and the parties in the lawsuit 鈥� filed five years ago 鈥� submitted briefs before and after the Bruen ruling.
鈥淕iven these circumstances 鈥� the speculative nature of any possible mootness scenario and the fact that neither party has asked us to wait to see whether any mootness potentiality materializes 鈥� we think we should resolve the parties鈥� disagreement without further delay,鈥� Rosenbaum wrote.
