In layman’s terms: the DOJ now says the under-21 handgun ban is unconstitutional and that it will not enforce it, so it wants the case closed. But the only real court protection covers members of three gun groups in three states, and the next administration can change its mind.
WASHINGTON — When it comes to victories securing Second Amendment rights, the gun rights community seeks enduring solutions like court determinations and statutes passed by law-making bodies. Unfortunately, when it comes to firearms bans for adults under 21, the Supreme Court has shown no appetite to take up the issue, leaving disputes at the appellate level and the DOJ’s own posture on the subject as the only real resolution.
One of those cases is Firearms Policy Coalition v. ATF (formerly Reese v. ATF), a challenge to the federal age-based restriction on handguns which the Fifth Circuit held to be unconstitutional in January 2025, remanding the case to district court, which issued a very narrow injunction the following January.
The then-Bondi DOJ sought to limit the scope of the injunction (Bondi later stepped down as attorney general in April), but even as recently as March, the DOJ sought to limit the effectiveness of the injunction, as we reported.
On October 5, the DOJ took a new tack in a brief to the Fifth Circuit, asking the court to dismiss the appeal “as moot” while also asking it to “reject plaintiffs’ request to expand the permanent injunction.” This is not necessarily the win that gun rights groups hoped for, but it is a slight change of posture from the DOJ.
The specific change is that the DOJ now asserts that “The Department of Justice’s determination that it will not enforce the challenged provisions against anyone, anywhere, demonstrates that there is no longer a live controversy.”
Here it cites the recent September 17 slip opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, which stated that federal, age-based restrictions on firearms for adults are “presumptively unconstitutional.”
Disappointingly, the DOJ also asked the court not to broaden the injunction, stating, “plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that a broader permanent injunction is necessary to prevent ‘irreparable injury,’ or that other remedies (such as declaratory relief) would not be sufficient.”
The DOJ asserts that a broadening of the injunction would be akin to asking for a universal injunction, as prohibited under CASA:
And plaintiffs never identify any practical difference between such relief and the universal injunctions that the Supreme Court prohibited in CASA.
Yet, the request for a larger injunction is not only logical, it seems unassailable given that the OLC states that age-based bans are unlawful and that the current injunction applies to a narrow subset of the entire population, covering only the plaintiffs and anyone who was a member of FPC, the Second Amendment Foundation, or the Louisiana Shooting Association on the day judgment was entered, and barring enforcement only within the Fifth Circuit, leaving millions of Americans unprotected.
The DOJ asserts that “Because the Executive Branch has now concluded that the challenged restrictions are unconstitutional, there is no imminent risk that the government will enforce those restrictions against anyone.” Yet this policy determination provides no certain protection for Americans under future administrations.
We will continue to follow this story.
