Federal Court Rules Your 2nd Amendment Rights Begin at 21

A federal court just delivered a major ruling that affects millions of young adults in the U.S. According to a June 18, 2025, decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Americans under the age of 21 do not have a constitutional right to buy handguns from licensed dealers. In a 2-1 ruling, the court reversed lower court decisions that had favored a group of 18 to 20-year-old plaintiffs. As Joe Dodson of Courthouse News Service reported, the panel found the restriction consistent with historical traditions and not a violation of the Second Amendment.

Historical Roots and English Law Invoked

Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson leaned heavily on historical precedent. He compared the restriction to the English common law “infancy doctrine,” which held that people under 21 were legal minors and couldn’t be bound by contracts. “Whether he faces criminal penalties or a law that transforms his sales into free giveaways, a rational merchant is highly unlikely to sell a gun to a minor,” Wilkinson wrote. This echoes the thinking behind the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which Congress passed to keep handguns away from “emotionally immature” young adults.

The Bruen Standard and the Historical Test

The plaintiffs in the case, known as McCoy v. ATF, argued the ban violated the Second Amendment, especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision. Under Bruen, the government must prove any gun regulation aligns with the nation’s historical traditions. Lower courts had found in favor of the plaintiffs, noting no consistent history of banning handgun sales to 18- to 20-year-olds. But Wilkinson’s ruling took a different approach, pointing to post-Civil War state laws and 19th-century age-based firearm restrictions as sufficient historical support.

Judge Quattlebaum Dissents Strongly

Not all judges agreed. Trump-appointed Judge Marvin Quattlebaum issued a sharp dissent. He argued that Wilkinson’s comparison to the infancy doctrine was flawed because that doctrine affects sellers, not buyers. He pointed out that the law imposes serious consequences – fines and prison – for those who sell handguns to young adults, unlike the old refund-based contract rescissions. “They are not to be seriously compared with the threat of prison,” he wrote, warning that this decision could open the door to more overreach under the guise of historical analogies.

Yanis: Adults Denied Their Rights

Gun rights analyst Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News, didn’t hold back. “This should terrify every gun owner in America,” he said in his recent video. Yanis reminded viewers that 18-year-olds can vote, pay taxes, and even serve in the military, yet they cannot legally buy a handgun from a dealer. “You can join the Marines and carry an M4 in battle, but you can’t buy a Glock at home? Make that make sense,” he said.

The Militia Act Argument Falls Flat

The plaintiffs also argued that the founders clearly trusted 18-year-olds with guns, pointing to the 1792 Militia Act. That law required men ages 18 to 45 to arm themselves and enroll in the militia. However, Judge Wilkinson dismissed that comparison, saying the act concerned possession, not commercial purchase, and that most militia members likely used family firearms. He emphasized the distinction between public duty and personal consumer rights.

Concerns Over the Slippery Slope

Yanis, like many Second Amendment advocates, expressed concern that this ruling creates a legal loophole big enough to drive gun control agendas through. “If they can justify banning 18-year-olds using a centuries-old business law, what’s stopping them from applying that same logic to 25-year-olds, or 30-year-olds, or other groups they deem ‘unfit’?” he asked. The lack of a clear, historically consistent precedent might not just affect young adults – it might eventually reshape gun rights for everyone.

Judge Heytens Suggests Younger Rights – Then Dismisses Them

In a concurring opinion, Judge Toby Heytens (a Biden appointee) warned that accepting the plaintiffs’ logic could imply that even 16- and 17-year-olds might have a right to buy handguns. He called this a “startling result” that the plaintiffs “seek to obscure.” But Elliott Harding, attorney for the young men, fired back, telling Joe Dodson of Courthouse News Service that Heytens’ speculation was “a red herring.” Harding clarified: “That’s not the case we brought. We aren’t arguing for minors. We’re talking about legal adults being denied a constitutional right.”

The Legal Maze of Gun Access

Here’s where things get murky. Under current federal law, 18- to 20-year-olds can legally own handguns. They just can’t buy them from a federally licensed dealer. They can receive them as gifts or purchase them through private sales, if their state allows it. Yanis rightly questioned this logic: “A right delayed is a right denied,” he said. The court framed this limited access as a “narrow” restriction. But in real-world terms, it places a massive barrier between young adults and their ability to defend themselves legally.

Supreme Court May Have to Weigh In

With this ruling, the split between federal circuit courts on age-based gun restrictions has grown even wider. Florida’s 21+ sales law is already being challenged in NRA v. Glass, and two more cases – McCoy v. ATF and Brown v. ATF – may soon land before the U.S. Supreme Court. Yanis believes SCOTUS must step in. “This case is a prime candidate for Supreme Court review,” he said. “The district court applied Bruen correctly. The appeals court rewrote the test.”

This Is Bigger Than Just 18-Year-Olds

Whether or not you’re under 21, this case should catch your attention. If the courts can sidestep the Bruen test by cherry-picking analogies from contract law, what’s to stop them from restricting other rights based on age or other classifications? Today it’s 18-year-olds. Tomorrow it might be seniors, the mentally ill, or people on watchlists. Once we accept that rights depend on bureaucratic discretion, the Second Amendment loses its teeth.

Time to Clarify the Boundaries

This case highlights a key flaw in our legal system’s handling of gun rights – the lack of clarity. Judge Wilkinson says possession is fine, but purchasing isn’t. Judge Heytens warns against extending rights to teens, even though that’s not the issue at hand. Judge Quattlebaum says courts should interpret law, not make policy. So who’s right? The fact that three judges gave three very different opinions shows exactly why the Supreme Court needs to settle this. Until then, young Americans remain in legal limbo.

Rights on Hold Until Your 21st Birthday

In the end, the Fourth Circuit’s decision draws a sharp – and for many, frustrating – line at age 21. If you’re under that threshold, your right to buy a handgun is on hold, regardless of your responsibilities, obligations, or legal status as an adult. Judge Wilkinson may believe that “infants” can’t be trusted with contracts or guns, but for many Americans, including Jared Yanis and the plaintiffs in McCoy v. ATF, this ruling doesn’t just delay a right – it denies it. Whether this stands as the final word or gets overturned by the Supreme Court remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the age debate on the Second Amendment is just getting started.