Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier urged the Supreme Court to invalidate a Florida law that forbids individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 from buying firearms.
The case is known as National Rifle Association of America Inc. v. Glass. The respondent is Mark Glass, commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
The Republican-dominated Florida Legislature approved the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act in 2018, which then-Gov. Rick Scott (R) signed into law. The statute was named after the mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school that led to the deaths of 17 people.
The law prohibited the purchase of firearms by individuals between the ages of 18 and 21. Violating the law is a third-degree felony punishable by as many as five years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. The purchase ban exempts law enforcement officers, correctional officers, and members of the military.
A federal district court upheld the law.
The ruling was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). The high court determined that for a firearm regulation to be constitutional it has to “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The law that prevents people aged between 18 and 21 from buying firearms is “consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the majority opinion said.
“From the Founding to the late-nineteenth century, our law limited the purchase of firearms by minors in different ways.” The state law was enacted “to stop immature and impulsive individuals … from harming themselves and others with deadly weapons.”
Uthmeier said in his brief that the Florida law “materializes” a “general mistrust” of young adults “through a blanket prohibition that no known Founding-era law or tradition ever imposed; a near-total ban for 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing firearms while also preventing a licensed dealer from selling or transferring a firearm to such a person.”
The law leaves a “20-year-old single mom” unable to “defend herself and her child against a menacing ex-boyfriend,” and also leaves a “19-year-old who lives alone in a bad neighborhood and fears gang violence” unable to defend himself or herself.
“To be sure, some young adults may be able to borrow a firearm from a parent or other older adult. But the exercise of a vaunted constitutional right should not depend on that chance,” Uthmeier said.
The Supreme Court should take up the case to resolve a split among the federal courts of appeal on whether age restrictions are consistent with “regulatory traditions from the Founding era.” The 11th, 10th, and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that age restrictions pass constitutional muster, while the Fifth Circuit has made the opposite finding, he said.
The National Rifle of Association is “mistaken” in arguing that the appeals courts are “intractably divided” on the constitutionality of firearm purchase restrictions that apply to those aged between 18 and 21.
The “conflicting” opinions cited by the NRA are “materially distinguishable from the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in this case,” the brief said.
The Supreme Court is currently in recess for the summer. It is unclear when the justices will consider the case.
