ATF v Reese - Under-21 handgun purchase ban

[Euler]

On January 30, a 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit ruled that 18 USC 922(b)(1) and 18 USC 922(c)(1), which together prohibit FFLs from selling handguns to 18-20-year-old adults, are unconstitutional.

On April 16, the ATF filed for an extension to the deadline to petition for certiorari from April 30 to May 30. (shadow docket)

On April 21, Alito granted the extension to petition.

Edited May 3, 2025 at 02:48 AM by Euler
Reece → Reese

[Euler]

On May 12, ATF filed for another extension to petition for certiorari.

[Euler]

On May 14, Alito granted an extension to June 27.

[Euler]

On June 27 (and after), the ATF missed its deadline to file a petition. It also has not asked for another extension.

Mark Smith is reporting that it means that ATF has decided to let the 5th Circuit decision (that 18-20-year-olds can buy handguns) stand. I haven't found any DOJ/ATF sources saying as much.

Meanwhile, in Brown v ATF and its twin, McCoy v ATF, which also regard handgun purchase by 18-20-year-olds, the 3rd Circuit found that the purchase ban is constitutional. I expect Brown or McCoy (or both) to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari. Those cases were/are sponsored by SAF and NSSF.

[EdDinIL]

Can somebody explain to me what the heck happened in this case?  I saw an explosion of tweets yesterday about this case, a mix of "We won!" and "This is horrible!", because somehow the judge ordered 2AF and FPC to release their member lists.

 

 

 

 

[Euler]

On October 8, 2025 at 04:01 PM CDT, EdDinIL said:→

Can somebody explain to me what the heck happened in this case? I saw an explosion of tweets yesterday about this case, a mix of "We won!" and "This is horrible!", because somehow the judge ordered 2AF and FPC to release their member lists.

Because the ATF apparently chose not to contest the circuit decision for the plaintiffs, the circuit decision overturning the district decision stands. The district court (docket) enjoined the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) within the 5th Circuit against members of FPC and SAF, retroactive to November 6, 2020. Therefore the court ordered those organizations to provide a list of their members as of November 6, 2020, apparently so law enforcement, courts, and FFLs would know who is exempt from the law prohibiting FFLs from selling handguns to 18-20-year-olds.

In other words, the district court is applying the appellate court's order only to people who are still under 21 now (i.e., people who were under 16 as of November 2020) if the FPC and SAF show that they were FPC or SAF members on November 6, 2020, by disclosing their membership lists. So they can have their 2nd Amendment rights if they waive their 1st Amendment rights.

The district judge is being pissy.

Edited October 8, 2025 at 09:34 PM by Euler

[ragsbo]

On 10/8/2025 at 4:30 PM, Euler said:

Because the ATF apparently chose not to contest the circuit decision for the plaintiffs, the circuit decision overturning the district decision stands. The district court (docket) enjoined the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) within the 5th Circuit against members of FPC and SAF, retroactive to November 6, 2020. Therefore the court ordered those organizations to provide a list of their members as of November 6, 2020, apparently so law enforcement, courts, and FFLs would know who is exempt from the law prohibiting FFLs from selling handguns to 18-20-year-olds.

In other words, the district court is applying the appellate court's order only to people who are still under 21 now (i.e., people who were under 16 as of November 2020) if the FPC and SAF show that they were FPC or SAF members on November 6, 2020, by disclosing their membership lists. So they can have their 2nd Amendment rights if they waive their 1st Amendment rights.

The district judge is being pissy.
 

So again, the claim is it is unconstitutional for only the few while the rest of the folks can still have their right denied 

[Upholder]

On 10/8/2025 at 5:11 PM, ragsbo said:

So again, the claim is it is unconstitutional for only the few while the rest of the folks can still have their right denied 

 

Almost.  The 5th Circuit ruled that the law was facially unconstitutional and directed the district court to enter a judgement to that effect. 

 

The district court is claiming that they no longer have the authority for a broader permanent injunction.  The district court is conflating SCOTUS rulings about universal temporary and preliminary injunctions with their authority as it relates to permanent injunctions.

 

As Euler said, the district judge that was overruled is being pissy and is (IMHO) likely to get a spanking by the 5th circuit.

 

[ealcala31]

On 10/8/2025 at 7:02 PM, Upholder said:

 

Almost.  The 5th Circuit ruled that the law was facially unconstitutional and directed the district court to enter a judgement to that effect. 

 

The district court is claiming that they no longer have the authority for a broader permanent injunction.  The district court is conflating SCOTUS rulings about universal temporary and preliminary injunctions with their authority as it relates to permanent injunctions.

 

As Euler said, the district judge that was overruled is being pissy and is (IMHO) likely to get a spanking by the 5th circuit.

 

The district court judge made this ruling a de-facto moot ruling. No plaintiff, who was 18yrs old at the time of the court filing on Nov. 6, 2020, qualifies. No other member would ever qualify anymore. This has bigger implications. Judge Easterbrook hinted at doing something similar during oral arguments in the 7th Circuit recently. If he does, not every IL resident would qualify if we get a favorable ruling in the 7th Circuit.

[Euler]

On October 10 in district court, the DOJ filed a motion jointly with the plaintiffs to amend the October 7 judgment to remove the requirement that the plaintiff organizations must disclose their membership lists. DOJ states that it does not, in general, seek to compel organizations to disclose their members, nor did it do so in this case.

The motion does not contest the restriction of the injunction to be applicable only for people who were under 16 years old as of October 2020, members of the organizations on November 6, 2020, and currently residents within the 5th Circuit (all of which is virtually nobody if not actually nobody). In the filing, the plaintiffs reserve the right to appeal the narrow applicability of the injunction, so expect that to happen.

[Euler]

On October 14, the district judge vacated his order (in a document dated October 10). He announced his intention to schedule a telephone conference among parties about amending the order and setting a briefing schedule, if necessary.