Brown v ATF - Under-21 Handgun Ban

[THE KING]

 

Just in. 

Prohibition on 18 to 20 year olds purchasing handguns found facially unconstitutional. This applies nationwide. 👍👍

Enjoy 

 

Edited December 19, 2023 at 06:07 PM by mauserme
Edited Topic Title with OP's Consent

[Euler]

Docket, Federal District Court of Northern West Virginia

[steveTA84]

IL law for 21 on all guns challenged when? Lol. Good stuff 

[Tvandermyde]

Meyer v. Raoul (3:21-cv-00518)

 

Meyer v. Raoul, 3:21-cv-00518 – CourtListener.com

[davel501]

They were looking for additional plaintiffs. 

 

 

[Euler]

On December 7, the judge stayed the injunction pending appeal. I don't have a docket number yet.

[Euler]

On December 11, CA4 assigned docket number 23-2275 to the appeal.

[Euler]

On December 13, ATF filed a motion to consolidate this case with 23-2085 McCoy v ATF, another under-21 case from Eastern Virginia currently on appeal in CA4.

[Euler]

On December 28, the judge deferred consolidating this case with McCoy until after consideration of the merits. (There have not yet been any briefs filed on the case at the appellate level.)

[Euler]

On January 22, the ATF filed its opening brief, in which it stated again that McCoy is a case pending in CA4 (or the Supreme Court of the United States) which raises similar issues.

On January 29, Giffords Law Center and Brady Center filed a joint amicus brief which stated that there is no pending case which raises similar issues before CA4 or the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Everytown also filed an amicus brief which stated that McCoy is a case pending in CA4.

On February 5, the court tentatively scheduled oral argument for sometime during the week of May 7. Parties are to notify the court of scheduling conflicts by February 15. The court also directed parties, including Giffords and Brady, to reconsider their statements about similar cases. ATF, Brown, and Everytown responded immediately (same day) with McCoy.

On February 6, Giffords and Brady changed their joint answer, so now everyone agrees on McCoy.

[I'm a bit disturbed by CA4's deference to Giffords, Brady, and Everytown, which are not parties to this suit. It's not like they're sponsoring ATF's defense.]

[Euler]

On February 26, CA4 placed the case in abeyance pending 3 other cases in CA4: Maryland Shall Issue v Moore, US v Price, and Bianchi v Brown.

[Euler]

On September 17, the judge took the case out of abeyance and ordered ATF to file a reply brief by October 8. Brown had previously filed the response brief on February 21.

[Euler]

On September 18, the government wasted no time asking for an extension to November 7 to file its reply.

[Euler]

On September 19, 2024 at 02:09 AM CDT, Euler said:→

On September 18, the government wasted no time asking for an extension to November 7 to file its reply.

On September 19, the court granted the extension.

[mab22]

On 9/19/2024 at 10:56 PM, Euler said:

On September 19, the court granted the extension.

Waiting for a couple of days after the election? 
Im sure there will be another extension requested around that time. 

[Euler]

On October 18, the judge tentatively scheduled the case for trial January 28.

On November 7, the government filed its (previously extended) reply.

[Euler]

On November 25, the CA4 scheduled oral arguments for January 30.

[Euler]

On December 20, the court ordered this case to be consolidated with McCoy v ATF.

McCoy is the earlier appeal by about 2 months.

[Euler]

On January 30, the court heard oral arguments.

[THE KING]

I really want to see CA4 opinion in this case. 

 

 CA5 just released their opinion in Reese v ATF on the prohibition of 18 to 20 year olds and they found that the prohibition violates the 2nd Amendment and is unconstitutional. 

 

 

 

[THE KING]

Just saw this. 

https://youtu.be/qOLhqGL_QbE?si=6GzRhJsdUfoZlaOW

[Euler]

On December 26, 2024 at 09:23 AM CST, Euler said:→

On December 20, the court ordered this case to be consolidated with McCoy v ATF.

McCoy is the earlier appeal by about 2 months.

On June 13, the judge deconsolidated this case from McCoy v ATF. The docket notice of deconsolidation provides no details other than "reasons."

Order said:

These cases were consolidated for purposes of oral argument on January 30, 2025.

For reasons appearing to the court, these cases are deconsolidated.

[Euler]

On June 18, a 3-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court ruling in McCoy v ATF, then used that decision to overturn the ruling in this case as well.

McCoy decision said:

...
18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) prohibits the commercial sale of handguns to individuals under the age of 21. Appellees are four 18-to-20-year-olds who want to buy handguns. The question in this case is whether § 922(b)(1) violates appellees' Second Amendment rights.

We hold that it does not. From English common law to America's founding and beyond, our regulatory tradition has permitted restrictions on the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21. Section 922(b)(1) fits squarely within this tradition and is therefore constitutional.
...

McCoy and Brown can (and probably will) make motions for en banc review.

Manwhile, ATF v Reese has already been petitioned to the Supreme Court. In Reese, the ATF lost at the appellate level, so that could mean a circuit split.

Edited July 3, 2025 at 05:38 AM by Euler

[Euler]

For reference, September 16 is the deadline to petition the US Supreme Court for certiorari.

[John Q Public]

Euler, can you put it in terms we all understand? :") Where we at here? 

 

JQ

[Euler]

If this administration isn't going to try to put an under-21 ban (purchase or carry) before the Supreme Court (e.g., the apparent decline of ATF v Reese), then it's going to have to be someone else.

"Someone else" is going to have to come from a circuit that has upheld a ban. Of the cases we're tracking in this forum, the choices are:

• This case (or McCoy) from the 4th Circuit, which upheld a purchase ban
• NRA v Glass from the 11th Circuit, which upheld a purchase ban
• Paris v SAF (previously known as Paris v Lara) from the 3rd Circuit, which overturned a carry ban (PA is petitioning for cert, rather than the feds, but I still expect cert to be denied)
• Meyer v Raoul, which is still in district court, regarding a carry ban from the 7th Circuit, but does anyone expect the 7th Circuit not to uphold the ban?

There could be other cases not tracked here, but unless NRA v Glass wins the prize (gets cert), the next most likely candidate(s) is McCoy/Brown.

Edited July 3, 2025 at 08:22 PM by Euler

[John Q Public]

Thanks ~SIgh~