According to Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News, the Department of Justice is defending federal restrictions that block 18–20-year-old adults from buying handguns from licensed dealers.
He says the government is arguing that “history and tradition” allow age-based limits, even while admitting the Second Amendment protects the conduct at stake.
Yanis reports the filing comes from the District of Connecticut in Succow v. Bondi, a challenge brought by two young adults, Zachary Succow and Samuel Town, along with supportive advocacy groups.
He explains they are asking the court to declare the federal purchase ban unconstitutional and to permanently stop its enforcement.
He notes the core statute is 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), a piece of the 1968 Gun Control Act that forbids FFLs from selling handguns to those under 21. In Yanis’ telling, the plaintiffs say Bruen controls, the plain text protects their conduct, and the burden shifts to the government to prove a historical analogue.
The Government’s Founding-Era Pitch
Yanis says DOJ’s brief leans on Founding-era sources to recast 18–20-year-olds as legal “infants” who lacked full contractual rights.
He lists Blackstone, Zephaniah Swift, and even John Adams as authorities the government cites to show that people under 21 were seen as lacking “reason and judgment.”
As Yanis summarizes it, the government’s logic goes like this: if minors historically could not enter contracts, hold property independently, or act publicly without parental consent, then a modern ban on dealer sales to 18–20-year-olds fits within tradition.
The filing, he says, even argues access remains because parents can still gift firearms, preserving a supposed historic channel of acquisition.
Yanis pushes back on that reading by pointing to the Militia Act of 1792, which required able-bodied men 18 to 45 to arm themselves with a musket or firelock. He underscores the contradiction: the same nation that ordered 18-year-olds to be armed is now being cited to justify disarming them at the gun counter.
According to Yanis, DOJ tries to blunt the militia point by saying states often required parents to supply arms for their sons, which means compulsory service did not equal an independent right to purchase.
He calls that an overreach that twists history into a one-way ratchet, generous for restrictions and stingy for rights.
A Live Circuit Split, Per Yanis
Yanis stresses that the DOJ acknowledges a widening split among federal appeals courts.
He lists McCoy v. ATF in the Fourth Circuit and NRA v. Bondi in the Eleventh Circuit as decisions upholding age-based limits.
On the other side, Yanis highlights the Fifth Circuit’s Reese v. ATF, which found similar bans unconstitutional under Bruen. He says the government is effectively urging the court to pick the anti-gun rulings and ignore the pro–Second Amendment one.
He adds that the DOJ even name-checks two Supreme Court cases already on the docket – Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Rahimi (Yanis pronounces it “Himmani” at one point) – as matters that could “shed light” on this issue.
In his view, that’s a tell: the government expects the justices to weigh in soon, and this case is positioned for a fast track.
Yanis argues the outcome will affect millions of adults who can vote, pay taxes, marry, and serve in uniform, yet cannot lawfully buy a handgun from a dealer. He frames that as a civil-rights mismatch that Bruen was supposed to resolve.
What Bruen Requires, As Yanis Frames It
Yanis walks through the Bruen test in simple terms. Step one asks whether the conduct falls within the plain text of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
If yes, he says, the burden shifts to the government to present a well-established historical tradition that justifies the restriction. He insists the DOJ’s “infants” theory tries to smuggle in contract law to limit a constitutional right.
In Yanis’ telling, the DOJ even concedes that purchasing a handgun is conduct covered by the Second Amendment – then pivots to a historical analogy to salvage the ban. He calls that a circular move we’ve seen “dozens of times” since Bruen: acknowledge the right, then invent an exception big enough to swallow it.
He also notes a fallback issue in the case: whether Connecticut may use NICS for private transfers to 18–20-year-olds.
According to Yanis, DOJ wants the court to punt, saying federal law doesn’t forbid that; if there’s a barrier, it’s state-created and Connecticut must fix it.
The Stakes Are Bigger Than Ever
Yanis says the stakes are bigger than a single age bracket. If the government can lock out 18–20-year-old adults from the dealer marketplace, he argues, it can build out an age-based scaffold that expands and contracts by policy mood.
He warns that the “infant” label could drift into other areas of public life, justifying temporary disarmament for college students, young parents, or anyone deemed not “mature” enough by shifting standards.
He pushes the slippery question: what stops that logic from leaking into speech, voting, or other rights when “tradition” can be defined loosely?
He predicts the Supreme Court will have to clean up the mess created by conflicting rulings, given the split he outlined.
And he tells his audience to watch Succow v. Bondi closely because it aligns with the broader post-Bruen realignment.
The Founders Knew Eighteen Meant Duty – And Arms
The most striking piece of Yanis’ report is the Militia Act contrast.
If you trust an 18-year-old to stand a post for the republic, the notion that he cannot buy the tool for that duty feels out of step with the era that wrote the right down in ink.
Contract law and constitutional liberty don’t always travel together. Minors faced limits on debts, wills, or sureties, yet the same communities trained and armed them because defense was a shared obligation that did not wait for birthdays.
To say “parents might provide the gun” proves the point Yanis is making. The culture expected 18-year-olds to be armed – so much so that someone, self or parent, would supply the arm.
Yanis is right to call out a trend. After Bruen, governments increasingly rummage through musty legal corners to find any friction that can be dressed up as “tradition.”
But Bruen didn’t ask for stray analogies; it asked for a rooted, representative tradition comparable in scope and purpose.
Turning contract disabilities into gun bans feels like a category mistake – rights of self-defense and militia duty do not flow from the same spigot as commercial capacity.
If an 18-year-old can vote, serve, and be prosecuted as an adult, we should be cautious about declaring him a child only at the gun counter. A republic depends on consistency, and history should be a guardrail for liberty, not a gag for disfavored rights.
Do We Redraw Adulthood When 2A Is in Play?
Yanis expects Succow v. Bondi to move quickly because the split is already ripe. With McCoy, NRA v. Bondi, and Reese pulling in different directions, the justices won’t be able to avoid the age question for long.
He warns that if the Court sides with DOJ’s “infants” theory, age-based bans will multiply. If it sides with Reese and the militia tradition, the federal purchase bar could fall, restoring dealer access to millions of lawful young adults.
Until then, Yanis tells viewers to stay alert and informed. He pledges to track filings, hearings, and any Supreme Court signals that show where this is going.
Per Jared Yanis, the DOJ is asking a federal court to uphold a handgun purchase ban for 18–20-year-olds by invoking a Founding-era view that treated them as legal “infants.”
He says the brief cites Blackstone, Swift, and Adams, while downplaying the 1792 militia mandate that armed 18-year-olds by law.
He points to a live circuit split – Fourth and Eleventh upholding, Fifth striking down – and notes that two pending Supreme Court cases loom over the field.
His conclusion is stark: the fight will likely end at the High Court, and it will decide whether history is a shield for liberty or a tool to ration it.
As Yanis frames it, the rhetoric is grand but the question is simple. Do adults who carry the burdens of citizenship get full access to the tools of self-defense – or do we redraw adulthood only when the Second Amendment is in play?
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.