TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Saying the restriction is “consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation,” a federal appeals court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Florida law that raised the minimum age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 18 to 21.
The 8-4 ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came after seven years of legal wrangling in the National Rifle Association’s challenge to a 2018 law passed after a mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 students and faculty members.
Nikolas Cruz, who was 19 at the time, used a semiautomatic rifle to gun down the victims at his former school. The NRA filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the gun-age restriction shortly after the law passed.
Friday’s ruling by the full Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a three-judge panel’s decision and outlined the history of the nation’s gun laws, from its founding to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting guidelines for determining how to apply the Second Amendment. While the law barred people under 21 from buying rifles and long guns, they still can receive them, for example, as gifts from family members.
“From this history emerges a straightforward conclusion: the Florida law is consistent with our regulatory tradition in why and how it burdens the right of minors to keep and bear arms,” Chief Judge William Pryor wrote. “Because minors have yet to reach the age of reason, the Florida law prohibits them from purchasing firearms, yet it allows them to receive firearms from their parents or another responsible adult.”
Judges Adalberto Jordan, Robin Rosenbaum, Jill Pryor, Kevin Newsom, Britt Grant, Nancy Abudu and Charles Wilson joined the majority opinion. Judge Andrew Brasher wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Judges Elizabeth Branch, Barbara Lagoa and Robert Luck.
The majority ruling relied heavily on U.S. Supreme Court standards, established in recent cases, saying that Second Amendment restrictions must be rooted in the “prevailing understanding” of gun rights from the nation’s founding era.
“The founders’ generation shared the view that minors lacked the reason and judgment necessary to be trusted with legal rights,” William Pryor wrote.
The chief judge noted that, at the time of the founding, minors generally could not purchase guns because they were deemed to lack the judgment and discretion to enter contracts and that minors were subject to the power of their parents.
The opinion noted that the Florida law also is consistent with the country’s regulatory tradition because it allows minors to possess rifles and long guns although they are prohibited from purchasing them.
The 2018 law “burdens the right no more than … historical restrictions because it prohibits purchase but preserves access to firearms with parental consent,” William Pryor wrote.
“From the founding to the late-19th century, our law limited the purchase of firearms by minors in different ways. The Florida law also limits the purchase of firearms by minors. And it does so for the same reason: to stop immature and impulsive individuals, like Nikolas Cruz, from harming themselves and others with deadly weapons. Those similarities are sufficient to confirm the constitutionality of the Florida law,” the majority ruling said.
But Brasher, in a dissent, disputed the historical roots of the age restriction.
“There were no age-based limitations” on the “right to keep and bear arms either before, during, or immediately after the adoption of the Bill of Rights,” Brasher wrote. “This is where the majority opinion loses its bearings. Simply put, there is nothing in our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation that resembles Florida’s complete prohibition on an adult’s ability to purchase a firearm based only on that adult’s age. Nothing in the founding-era legal landscape is analogous to the challenged law. To the extent the history says anything about age and firearms, it says that the states and federal government expected all men over the age of 18 to be armed.”
But William Pryor called the dissent’s characterization of people between the ages of 18 and 21 as adults as “unavailing,” arguing that it “discounts the key fact that, at the founding and until the late 20th century, the age of majority was 21.”
The majority opinion also questioned whether the dissenting judges would support any age restriction for firearm sales as constitutional.
“If they do not, their position would require enjoining the enforcement of numerous federal and state laws, including a federal law that prohibits licensed sellers from selling ‘any firearm or ammunition’ to an individual under the age of 18,” the majority opinion said.
The full appeals court decided to take up the issue after the three-judge panel’s ruling. Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker also upheld the law.
But Friday’s decision likely will not end debate about the law, which could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
After the ruling, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who took office last month, said he would not defend the law. Gov. Ron DeSantis tapped Uthmeier to replace former Attorney General Ashley Moody after DeSantis appointed her to the U.S. Senate.
“Men and women old enough to fight and die for our country should be able to purchase firearms to defend themselves and their families,” Uthmeier posted on social media.
Also, a state House panel on Wednesday approved a measure (HB 759) that would repeal the age restriction. The House passed such bills in 2023 and 2024, but the Senate refused to support the proposals.
DeSantis this month signaled that he would support revising state gun laws, including the gun-age restriction.
But state House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell, D-Tampa, praised Friday’s ruling.
“I am thrilled the 11th Circuit confirmed what we’ve been saying for years, that reasonable, responsible gun laws are both constitutional and appropriate to help keep us safe. We can, and should, limit someone from being able to purchase an AR 15 until they are at least 21 years old,” Driskell, D-Tampa, said in an email. “Any question about constitutionality has now been clearly settled. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas Act is lawful and should continue to protect our communities as it has since 2018. Florida is safer for it.”
