Judge Temporarily Stays Decision on Young Adults’ Gun Purchases

Second Amendment Courts Judges Strict Scrutiny
Judge Temporarily Stays Decision on Young Adults’ Gun Purchases

A week after a federal district court judge ruled the prohibition on 18 to 20-year-old adults buying guns from federal firearms licensees (FFL) was ruled unconstitutional, the same judge stayed his own decision pending an appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case Brown v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was filed by two West Virginia residents under the age of 21 named Steven Brown and Benjamin Weekley, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL). It claimed that the law banning young adults under 21 was unconstitutional and did not stand up to the Bruin standard.

Since the Bruin decision by the Supreme Court, laws cannot rely on intermediate scrutiny to prove a law is constitutional. Intermediate scrutiny weighs the state’s interest against the people’s rights. Now, any gun laws must be consistent with the text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment.

District court judge Thomas S. Kleeh ruled that the government didn’t prove that the law was constitutional. He pointed out that the ATF couldn’t give any analogues that showed a similar law from the founding era. He said that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of the case and thought that the law was unconstitutional. He rejected every argument the ATF made in its defense. He issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law and refused to stay the injunction initially.

Now, the judge has decided to issue a stay in the case. He stated he stands behind his original decision and believes that the plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of the case, but highlighted how other courts came to different conclusions about the constitutionality of the law in his reasoning for issuing a stay.

“While the Court stands behind its reasoning and determination in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court finds that the first factor weighs in favor of staying the injunction,” the order reads. “Several federal district courts have evaluated the constitutionality of 922(b)(1)’s age ban with differing results. This lawsuit poses the substantial and novel question ‘of the proper definition of ‘the people’ in the Second Amendment and whether 18-to-21-year-olds fall within in it. In well-reasoned and thoughtful opinions, district courts have landed on both sides of that debate.’ Because Courts are split in their assessment of this question, reasonable minds can and have varied. Accordingly, the first factor weighs in favor of staying the injunction pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.”

The second reason the judge gave is that the government’s argument persuaded him that if it had to change its guidelines for FFLs multiple times, it would confuse the gun stores and hinder the enforcement of the laws.

“The Government furthermore would be placed in a difficult position of changing and then rechanging its guidance to FFLs and its processes, procedures, and forms, causing significant confusion for law enforcement officers, retailers, and citizens,” the government argued, “This confusion could hamper the Government’s ability to effectively engage in law enforcement, thus jeopardizing public safety interests.”

The judge also states that the injunction will not be nationwide if the stay is lifted. He says he does not have the authority to impose such an injunction.

“If/when the stay is lifted, the subject injunction is not a nationwide injunction,” the judge wrote. “Nor does the Court contend that it would have such authority to impose such a universal injunction.”

The ATF plans to appeal the injunction to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Until then, the stay will remain in effect.


About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

19 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CBW

The good judge must have had a visit from his corrupt colleagues who probably threatened his kids. Now The plaintiffs can wait until they are 55 or 65 when the appeals are finally all over and it will not matter. Infringers gonna infringe. This is all sickening and needs to stop.

Jaque

Or run out of money. Which is the tactic of the Communist courts who have infinite funds to impose Tyranny. Lawfare is what its called.

buzzsaw

The benefit of the doubt should always favor liberty and rights of the people.

An injunction against enforcing anti-liberty laws should never be stayed.

An injunction against exercising a right should always be stayed.

A right or liberty should be exercisable until all appeals are exhausted and all court processes are finished. Only then, and only if it loses, may it be restricted.

HLB

There is the region beyond “all court processes are finished” if the right or liberty is infringed, then it may not be restricted because the people will not allow that.

HLB

buzzsaw

Agreed! Seems like the British discovered that region back in 1775.

Whatstheuseanyway

I realize that the feds have broken up the courts into districts, but federal judges rule on federal laws and their rulings on federal laws need to be nationwide, not localized or limited to the aggrieved parties only.

Watch um

It’s OK to give an 18 year old man a weapon of war (rifle and pistol) and send him of to another nation while the old judge sits at home and cheers the young man to defend freedom, but the young man is not responsible enough to own a gun when he comes home, if he not killed for defending the old judge

Last edited 10 months ago by Watch um
DIYinSTL

As much as I like the original decision by judge Kleeh, your argument is a poor one. 18 year old civilians can legally purchase long guns in most States, including ARs and AKs, and can possess handguns. 18 year old servicemen are not “given” weapons of war, they are “issued.” Unless you are an MP, in a theater of war, or guard duty in some locations, a service member is not in possession of arms and ammunition outside of closely supervised training environments. Even under the stated conditions there is a degree of supervision.

Wild Bill

During the period of time that a SM is “issued” weapons, weapons systems, and ammunition that individual could do a lot of damage, in fact we expect them to, yet, his command and nation trusts him. So that part of the argument is valid. The legal concept of possession is broad and includes a period of issue. In most states and long guns is not enough. We are all under a degree of supervision our whole lives, laws, statutes, regulations, for some probation, our schools, families, mothers and wife. Personally, I think that his argument is a good one. Merry… Read more »

Last edited 10 months ago by Wild Bill
DIYinSTL

Merry Christmas to you too!

Bill

I did not have a gun. I was issued a gun. Now I have a gun, but it absolutely was not given to me. Okay.

swmft

Oddly had one issued and one given, they never asked for the m14 back got a tax stamp for it ….sooooo

HLB

Your argument is good.

HLB

Nate53

Since when has ATF been concerned about confusing FFL’s?

PMinFl

Does the BATFE have a timeline to file it”s formal appeal, if not then they could ride this stay until forced to appeal or accept the decision?

Last edited 10 months ago by PMinFl
HLB

In well-reasoned and thoughtful opinions, district courts have landed on both sides of that debate.”

So if courts want to they can infringe or destroy your rights, and that is Ok as long as it is well-reasoned and thoughtful. BS.

HLB

musicman44mag

Yep, and I am sick and tired of the “she/he/it had no mal content when they accidentally broke the law” so no prudent person would prosecute them.

They broke the law and ignorance is no excuse. Lock her up.

Trump 2024

Bill

So, we have judges who evaluate a case and come to a well considered decision, which is an entirely correct decision… if other judges happen to agree. One big glass jaw posing as a fighter, or at least an intelligent leader. A leftist judge doesn’t second guess his own decision. On the contrary, he dares others to challenge him. But everyone in authority who “defends” freedom seems ready to doubt that freedom is really an okay thing.

RepealNFA

Wow, this good judge CLEARLY got the creepy deep state “phone call in the middle of the night.” Wow, so obvious. Somebody with a lot of secret creepy criminal power SCARED this judge away from doing the correct thing that he had ALREADY DONE (which is the giveaway). This judge ruled correctly and didn’t issue a stay, then after a week, mysteriously changes his mind and shovels a bunch of nonsense. So we had a week of liberty. He claims he doesn’t have the authority for a nationwide injunction. BALDERDASH! Yes he does and he knows it. He’s suddenly more… Read more »

Last edited 10 months ago by RepealNFA