In a closely watched decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has ruled in McCoy v. ATF that 18- to 20-year-olds can be legally denied the ability to buy handguns from licensed dealers. While these same individuals can vote, serve on juries, sign contracts, and enlist in the military, the court says they can constitutionally be barred from commercial handgun purchases.
The court upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), a federal law from the 1968 Gun Control Act that prohibits Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) from selling handguns to anyone under 21. The plaintiffs, four young adults, argued this violated their Second Amendment rights. But the majority opinion, written by Judge Wilkinson, said history supported the restriction.
The Court’s Reasoning: History, Tradition, and English Law
Judge Wilkinson pointed to historical laws that restricted gun access for young people. According to the opinion, “our regulatory tradition has permitted restrictions on the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21.” The ruling leans heavily on the Bruen test set by the U.S. Supreme Court, which demands laws be evaluated through the lens of text, history, and tradition.
Because the founding era had certain limits on militia-age firearm access, the court says it’s consistent with constitutional principles to continue those limits today. The court emphasized that the law only restricts commercial sales, not possession, ownership, or private gifts, and applies only to handguns, not rifles or shotguns.
Judge Quattlebaum’s Dissent: This Is Policy-Making, Not Constitutional Law
But not every judge agreed. In a powerful dissent, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. argued that the law does violate the Second Amendment and accused the majority of inserting policy preferences into constitutional interpretation.
“As judges, we interpret law rather than make policy,” Quattlebaum wrote. “Under Supreme Court precedent, this federal handgun purchase ban violates the Second Amendment. Under common sense, it violates the Second Amendment.” His words echoed the frustrations of many in the gun rights community, including the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which posted the dissent on social media.
Langley: “They Can Fight and Vote, But Not Buy a Handgun?”
Gun rights YouTuber Braden Langley of Langley Outdoors Academy called the ruling “deeply unfair.” In his video reacting to the decision, Langley said the court had “discriminated against 18- to 20-year-olds for no reason other than their age.”
He pointed out the obvious contradiction: young adults can enlist in the military, vote in national elections, sign contracts, and be held fully responsible under the law – but somehow they aren’t “mature” enough to buy a handgun from a licensed dealer. “What’s to stop them from raising the age to 35 next?” Langley asked. “Like running for president?”
A Circuit Split Emerges – Supreme Court Likely to Weigh In
This ruling puts the Fourth Circuit in direct opposition to a prior decision by the Fifth Circuit, which struck down a similar under-21 ban. That disagreement, known as a circuit split, almost guarantees eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
As Langley explained, the Court usually waits until different lower courts disagree on the same issue before stepping in. With the Fifth Circuit saying under-21 bans are unconstitutional and the Fourth Circuit saying they’re fine, the legal conflict is ripe for resolution.
Everytown’s Arguments Under Fire
One of the most controversial moments in the case came from an amicus brief filed by Everytown for Gun Safety. In his dissent, Judge Quattlebaum tore into the logic used by Everytown, which argued that 18- to 20-year-olds weren’t historically part of “the people” because they couldn’t vote in 1791.
Quattlebaum called this reasoning dangerous and discriminatory, saying it would also exclude people from Second Amendment protection based on race, gender, or property ownership, because those groups also couldn’t vote at the time. Braden Langley summed it up harshly: “Everytown just used racism and sexism from the 1700s to justify modern gun control.”
FPC and Legal Experts Weigh In
The Firearms Policy Coalition, which helped support the case, posted a series of quotes by Judge Quattlebaum on X (formerly Twitter). One of the most notable was: “The arguments Everytown made in its brief would not only exclude from the Second Amendment those who couldn’t vote because of age; it also would exclude those who couldn’t vote based on property ownership, race, or gender.”
Attorney Kostas Moros added his own take: “I actually don’t have a problem with under-21 bans… if we decide as a society that that is the age of majority. But we haven’t; we set it at 18 for adulthood, including voting. So that is when the right to arms must attach too.”
The Law’s Narrow Scope – But Wide Implications
The court went out of its way to say the law is “narrow.” It only applies to commercial handgun purchases through licensed dealers. It doesn’t touch private sales or gifts. And it allows young adults to buy rifles or shotguns.
Still, the implications are wide. Many see this as the government drawing arbitrary lines around constitutional rights. If you’re 18, you’re trusted to carry a military rifle in defense of the nation – but not to buy a civilian handgun for self-defense back home. Critics argue that makes little sense in either logic or law.
DOJ, ATF, and the Role of Enforcement
While the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is the agency named in the suit, it simply enforces the law passed by Congress. But under current Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DOJ has been dialing back some gun control measures. This makes the court ruling especially significant, since it reinforces a federal restriction the executive branch might otherwise relax.
So far, there’s been no public statement from the DOJ or the ATF following the court’s decision.
“Old Enough for War, Not for Rights?”
It’s hard not to see the hypocrisy. If 18 is old enough to vote, serve, and die for your country, it should be old enough to exercise your full constitutional rights. The court says this ruling fits “tradition,” but tradition once said women couldn’t vote, minorities couldn’t own property, and only landowners had rights.
Judge Quattlebaum’s dissent is the breath of reason in a room fogged by outdated logic. The idea that historical discrimination can justify modern infringement is deeply troubling. If anything, this ruling exposes just how far some courts will go to preserve selective interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Headed to the High Court
With a clear circuit split and growing national debate, the Supreme Court is likely the next stop. This case will test not only legal precedent but also how seriously the courts take the idea of equal citizenship at 18.
Until then, 18- to 20-year-olds in states within the Fourth Circuit, like North Carolina, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia, remain unable to buy handguns from licensed dealers. Whether that changes soon depends on how fast the nation’s highest court decides to act.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.