A federal district judge in West Virginia last week ruled that this law was unconstitutional and did not meet the requirements laid out in Bruen. While this is good news, it has been somewhat tempered.
Judge Thomas S. Kleeh then stayed his own decision as the case would go before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. So, despite running afoul of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, the statute remains intact.
The law banning handgun purchases by young adults originated many years ago. It was included in the Gun Control Act of 1968, a product of the decade’s assassinations and sharp rise in violent crime. The particular law involved in Brown v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been in effect ever since.
The case was brought to court by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the West Virginia Citizens Defense League. It was filed on behalf of two state residents under the age of 21, Stephen Brown and Benjamin Weekley, who were denied the ability to purchase a pistol.
The plaintiffs argued against the prohibition of these handgun sales on the grounds that it interfered with the clear intent of the Founding Fathers. They also asserted that there is no historical tradition of firearm regulation banning sales from this age group — the standard required by the high court’s landmark Bruen ruling.
Judge Kleeh concluded that the segment of the Gun Control Act of 1968 in question did not pass constitutional muster.
Part of his determination was the simple fact that the ATF could not produce one example of a historical U.S. law stripping gun rights away from law-abiding adults. Kleeh expressed his belief that the plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of the case.
He further issued a preliminary injunction and rejected a request to stay this action. Initially.
That changed within days, however, though Kleeh stands behind his ruling. He now notes how other courts reached differing opinions as the overriding factor in staying his first ruling.
“While the Court stands behind its reasoning and determination in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court finds that the first factor weighs in favor of staying the injunction,” the order granting the stay stated. “Several federal district courts have evaluated the constitutionality of 922(b)(1)’s age ban with differing results.”
The order further explained that there is a “substantial and novel question” of who the Second Amendment refers to as “the people” and whether this includes 18-to-20-year-olds. Kleeh observed that differing courts have reached “well-reasoned and thoughtful opinions” on the matter contrary to his conclusion.
Judge Kleeh was also persuaded by the ATF’s argument that changing the rules surrounding FFLs and young adults multiple times would confuse gun retailers and impede enforcement of federal law.
“The Government furthermore would be placed in a difficult position of changing and then rechanging its guidance to FFLs and its processes, procedures and forms, causing significant confusion for law enforcement officers, retailers and citizens.”
While these concerns are legitimate, it should never be too much “trouble” to guarantee that constitutional freedoms are enjoyed by the people. There should be no misgivings about law-abiding citizens fully possessing the rights they are entitled to.
But that’s the position West Virginia residents find themselves in. The ATF will appeal Kleeh’s injunction to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and while this case is being adjudicated, these rights for young adults will be infringed upon.
