McCoy v ATF - Under-21 federal handgun purchase ban

[Euler]

On June 18, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Gun Control Act provisions that ban firearm purchases from FFLs by individuals under 21-years-old. There were two cases: McCoy v ATF and Brown v ATF. (See the Brown topic for previous discussion.)

On July 3, McCoy petitioned the US Supreme Court for certiorari. (docket)

Edited July 15, 2025 at 12:41 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On July 28, the ATF asked for an extension to respond, from July 29 to August 8.

[Euler]

On July 29, the Court granted the extension to August 8.

[Euler]

On August 7, WV filed an amici brief with AL, AK, AR, FL, ID, IN, IA, KS, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OH, SC, SD, and TX supporting McCoy.

Edited August 12, 2025 at 07:03 PM by Euler

[Euler]

On August 21, the ATF asked again for an extension to file its response from September 8 to October 8. The ATF points out that this petition is not currently scheduled for the September 29 conference.

[Euler]

On August 25, the Court granted the extension.

[Euler]

On October 8, the ATF met the extended deadline.

Response said:

...
... Section 922(b)(1) regulates only federal firearms licensees' direct sales to individuals. It does not regulate the possession of firearms or other types of transfers (such as private sales or inheritances). It also does not prevent a parent or guardian from buying a firearm on behalf of a person under the age of 21.

Congress has enacted additional age-based firearms regulations that are not at issue here. For example, Congress has limited the circumstances under which persons under the age of 18 may possess handguns. ... Congress also has required enhanced background checks for firearms purchasers under the age of 21. ... Those provisions have not been challenged in this litigation. ...
...
Judge Heytens ... argued that petitioners' arguments prove too much, because they would show that even those younger than the age of 18 would have a constitutional right to possess firearms. ...
...
... But because petitioners have either already turned 21 years old or will do so soon, this case is likely to become moot before the Court has an opportunity to decide it. In any event, this Court recently granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in Wolford v. Lopez ... and is considering the government's petition in United States v. Hemani ... -- both Second Amendment cases that could shed light on the proper resolution of this case. Moreover, two other pending petitions for writs of certiorari -- West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. ATF ... and NRA, Inc. v. Glass ... -- raise questions concerning the Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds but do not suffer from the same vehicle problems as this case. This Court should accordingly hold the petition pending the resolution of those cases.
...

[Euler]

On November 7, the plaintiffs submitted their reply.

Reply said:

...
... Among other things, these laws bar adults from the means by which previously-unowned firearms and ammunition are available for purchase and federally-recognized background checks are conducted. These laws are unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit agreed in Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, ... but rather than petition for certiorari, the Government relied on the same device it does here to avoid a decision on the merits -- the passage of time and specter of mootness. ... The Government tragicomically relies on Father Time to do its bidding rather than argue against what our Founding Fathers guaranteed in the Second Amendment. The Court must not accept the invitation to "run out the clock" on an issue in which there is national implication.

The Government concedes that if the class is reinstated, there is no mootness concern. ...
...
The Government lists other reasons for opposing certiorari and the Petitioners respond to the arguments raised. First, the Government cites Second Amendment cases pending review on the merits and certiorari decisions. None of them support denial or deferral of this case. Second, the Government hopes this case becomes moot without class certification[,] yet that is no guarantee. Third, and most importantly, the heart of the Government's opposition is a tacit plea for this Court to memorialize a general preference against "one-way intervention" as an absolute prohibition. This case is the perfect vehicle to resolve a nationwide injustice and delve into arguably the most substantive application of text, history, and tradition of firearm regulations in our post-Bruen era. The petition must be granted.
...

Edited November 8, 2025 at 03:41 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On April 29, in response to ATF's position that this case will become moot when McCoy reaches his 21st birthday (which is soon), plaintiffs filed a motion seeking permission for a new plaintiff representative under 21 to intervene. Daniel Gibbs turned 18 years old four days before the 4th Circuit decision in this case.

[Euler]

On May 6, the ATF filed its response to the motion for intervenor plaintiff. ATF says that the case is already moot, because McCoy turned 21 on April 27.

[EdDinIL]

On 5/11/2026 at 8:58 PM, Euler said:

On May 6, the ATF filed its response to the motion for intervenor plaintiff. ATF says that the case is already moot, because McCoy turned 21 on April 27.

FATF