Huge Win For The Right To Keep and Bear Arms in Deep Blue State

Attorney Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, broke what he calls “major breaking news”: a Delaware trial judge has ruled that the state’s general handgun ban for 18–20-year-old adults violates the Delaware Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms. Smith emphasizes the political irony, this is Joe Biden’s home state, and frames the ruling as a “huge win” for the right to keep and bear arms in a deeply blue jurisdiction. His takeaway: even in states with aggressive gun restrictions, text-and-history arguments are finding traction.

What the Court Actually Struck Down

According to Smith, the case, Bernie v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, challenged a state law barring adults aged 18, 19, and 20 from purchasing or possessing certain firearms, especially handguns, with limited exceptions. The court held that these young adults are full-fledged adults for constitutional purposes and therefore cannot be categorically barred from acquiring the quintessential self-defense arm. Smith stresses that the law is unconstitutional and unenforceable as applied to this age group.

The Constitutional Hook: Delaware’s Article I, Section 20

Smith centers the ruling on Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution, adopted in 1987. He quotes the provision’s language recognizing an individual’s right “to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home, and state, and for hunting and recreational use.” In Smith’s telling, the judge emphasized that Delaware’s right is intentionally broader on its face than the federal Second Amendment, and it has been recognized by Delaware’s high court as an independent source of protection.

Why 18–20-Year-Olds Matter Legally and Practically

Smith spends time on why this age group matters. These young adults can vote, marry, sign contracts, and serve in the military, and many work late shifts or live in higher-crime neighborhoods due to lower income – factors that, in his view, heighten their need for self-defense. My take: whether you’re a maximalist on gun rights or not, the court’s alignment of adult legal status with adult constitutional protection is straightforward and coherent.

A 1987 Decision with 2025 Consequences

Smith calls Delaware’s 1987 adoption of Article I, Section 20 forward-looking. He notes the state acted long before Heller (2008) confirmed the Second Amendment’s individual-right character. In other words, Delaware pre-committed to a robust, individual state right, covering self-defense, hunting, and recreation. My view: that foresight now binds the state’s modern lawmakers; when a bill conflicts with this clear constitutional text, courts don’t need to reach federal law to strike it.

Rights vs. Privileges: The Judge’s Sharp Line

Quoting the ruling as Smith recounts it, the judge rejected comparisons between handgun purchases and alcohol or tobacco rules. Those are privileges conferred by statute, she wrote, whereas the right to keep and bear arms is constitutional. That distinction matters. You can’t defend a categorical denial of a right by analogizing it to limitations on non-fundamental privileges. My two cents: that’s clean, persuasive reasoning any court could adopt, regardless of ideology.

“Persons Prohibited” Lists and the Problem of Blanket Age Bans

Smith highlights another judicial point: most prohibited-person categories (felons, those civilly committed, etc.) involve individualized adjudications or clear findings. By contrast, Delaware’s age ban swept in all 18–20-year-olds without any individualized process. The court, per Smith’s account, found that a blanket disability of a constitutional right based solely on age, without adjudication, doesn’t fit the state’s usual prohibited-person framework.

The Neuroscience Argument Didn’t Carry the Day

Delaware argued, Smith says, that 18–20-year-old brains are still developing, affecting decision-making and impulse control. The judge reportedly found that interesting but insufficient to justify wholesale disarmament of an entire class of adults. My view: if brain-development curves justified categorical rights suspensions, many other adult rights would be on the chopping block. Courts are understandably reluctant to turn developmental averages into bright-line constitutional disqualifications.

The Standard of Review: Intermediate Scrutiny in Delaware

Smith flags a doctrinal wrinkle: Delaware courts apply intermediate scrutiny to the state’s arms provision, which invites interest-balancing. He’s critical of that approach, arguing it too often lets the government win despite a rights violation – a pattern the U.S. Supreme Court tried to arrest in Bruen. Even so, Smith says, the judge here still sided with the right under the existing Delaware standard, reasoning that handguns for self-defense lie at the core of the right and the state’s blanket ban couldn’t be squared with that.

A Brick in the Wall for Youth Rights – and Beyond

Smith frames the decision as another “brick in the wall” protecting young adults. Even though this is a state constitutional decision, he contends it fortifies the cultural and legal norm that all law-abiding adults possess the right to keep and bear arms. My commentary: state-level wins like this can shape federal doctrine indirectly, creating a judicial record and momentum that higher courts see when related cases rise on appeal.

Why a “Deep Blue” Win Matters

Smith leans into the symbolism: a gun-rights win in Delaware challenges the narrative that 2A plaintiffs can only succeed in red states or federal circuits seen as conservative. That matters for legislative drafting (lawmakers may think twice about sweeping restrictions) and for litigation strategy (plaintiffs won’t automatically forum-shop if home-state constitutions offer robust protection). Politically, the case reminds us that constitutional text still binds, even when the elected branches tilt in a different direction.

Practical Implications on the Ground

Assuming the ruling stands, 18–20-year-old Delawareans should regain access to handguns (and associated training markets). Retailers, trainers, and local officials will need to adjust policies and forms to match the decision. There may be implementation questions, from background-check systems to permitting or carry pathways, but the core is simple: young law-abiding adults are back inside the constitutional circle. In my view, that clarity helps both citizens and regulators.

Will the State Appeal – and What Then?

Smith doesn’t speculate beyond noting the win. Realistically, one could expect Delaware to appeal, asking higher state courts to reverse or narrow the ruling. If the Delaware Supreme Court keeps intermediate scrutiny, it could matter greatly how they balance interests and how tightly they define the core right. My opinion: even under intermediate scrutiny, the categorical ban looks overbroad, so the state may need a more tailored approach if it wants to regulate this age group’s access.

The Federal Overlay: Bruen, Heller, and Young-Adult Access

Smith stresses this is a state-constitutional decision, not a federal Second Amendment ruling. Still, Heller identified handguns as “the quintessential self-defense weapon,” and Bruen pushed courts away from interest-balancing toward historical tradition. Even if Delaware’s courts keep their own framework, the federal tide is running against sweeping prohibitions on common arms. My take: a future U.S. Supreme Court case on young-adult eligibility could settle the question nationally.

A Measured Word on Culture and Community Safety

Smith often reminds viewers that more law-abiding citizens safely exercising rights strengthens both the constitutional culture and practical public safety. I agree with a caveat: lawmakers and the 2A community should double-down on training, storage guidance, and responsible norms for newer gun owners, including young adults. Rights and responsibilities are complementary – not competitors.

The Bottom Line

Per Smith, Judge Reetta Green Street ruled that Delaware’s ban on 18–20-year-old adults buying or possessing handguns violates Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution, and is unconstitutional and unenforceable as applied to them. The opinion treats 18–20-year-olds as full adults for purposes of the state right, rejects analogies to alcohol/tobacco restrictions, and recognizes handgun ownership for self-defense as core. In a deep-blue state, that’s a big win – and potentially a harbinger of where youth-access cases are headed.