By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—DOJ Declares Federal Handgun-Sales Ban for Young Adults Unconstitutional; Politics: US Senate races toss-up races.
DOJ Declares Federal Handgun-Sales Ban for Young Adults Unconstitutional;
Florida Debate in this subject is rekindled
The Trump Justice Department has concluded that the federal government may not constitutionally criminally enforce its long-standing prohibition on licensed dealers selling handguns to otherwise law-abiding adults ages 18 through 20. The opinion is a major change in the executive branch’s enforcement position, but it does not repeal the federal statutes, bind courts, or automatically invalidate separate state age restrictions—including Florida’s law barring commercial firearm sales to people under 21.
The DOJ opinion
In a Sept. 17 memorandum opinion addressed to the Attorney General, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluded that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and 922(c)(1) are unconstitutional as applied to adults ages 18 through 20 seeking to purchase handguns. The opinion states that the provisions may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on licensed dealers who sell handguns to otherwise law-abiding members of that age group.
The federal restrictions date to the Gun Control Act era. Section 922(b)(1) generally bars federally licensed importers, manufacturers, dealers, and collectors from selling or delivering handguns or handgun ammunition to people under 21; it permits sales of rifles, shotguns, and related ammunition beginning at age 18. Section 922(c)(1) similarly addresses certain non-face-to-face dealer sales. As OLC describes the practical effect, the provisions exclude 18-to-20-year-olds from obtaining handguns through the primary legal firearms market.
The opinion does not address every age-related firearms regulation. It concerns handguns and handgun ammunition sold by federally licensed entities to otherwise eligible adults. It does not authorize sales to persons independently prohibited from possessing firearms, erase background-check requirements, resolve restrictions involving other weapons, or invalidate state-law restrictions.
Constitutional reasoning
OLC applies the two-step Second Amendment framework associated with District of Columbia v. Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, and the Supreme Court’s subsequent Second Amendment cases. First, it asks whether the Second Amendment’s text covers the relevant person, arms, and conduct. If the answer is yes, the government bears the burden of identifying a historical tradition that justifies the regulation.
The memorandum answers the textual question in favor of young adults. It reasons that citizens ages 18 through 20 are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, that handguns are arms commonly used for lawful self-defense, and that a restriction on acquiring handguns burdens the right to keep and bear them. The analysis rejects the idea that the constitutional inquiry can be avoided merely because the statutory command is directed at dealers rather than buyers. In OLC’s view, a prohibition on sales through the ordinary lawful retail market meaningfully restricts the prospective buyer’s ability to acquire a protected arm.
Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser summarized the Department’s position by observing that 18-year-olds may vote, serve on juries, be drafted, and face adult criminal penalties. “The Department of Justice may not constitutionally seek to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns to law-abiding adults who, in nearly every other relevant respect, are members of the political community,” Gaiser said.
The opinion’s historical argument rests heavily on Founding-era militia practice. OLC states that, of more than 250 colonial and early state militia statutes reviewed, 249 required service by 18-to-20-year-olds. It also relies on the 1792 Militia Act, which enrolled able-bodied white male citizens from ages 18 to 45 and required each enrollee to provide himself with a musket, firelock, or rifle. OLC reasons that it would be difficult to reconcile that expectation of private arms possession with a claim that the same class of young adults stood outside the Second Amendment’s protection.
The memorandum recognizes counterarguments. It notes the historical treatment of people under 21 as minors in some legal contexts and discusses laws that placed responsibility on parents or guardians to furnish militia arms to young men. OLC nevertheless concludes that those practices were designed to ensure that young adults were armed, not to keep arms from them, and therefore do not establish a tradition analogous to a blanket prohibition on licensed handgun sales to adults 18 through 20.
Reese and the litigation backdrop
DOJ’s conclusion arrives against the backdrop of Reese v. ATF, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the same federal statutory provisions violated the Second Amendment as applied to 18-to-20-year-olds. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that the government had not identified a Founding-era tradition sufficient to support a categorical restriction on young adults’ access to handguns through licensed dealers.
OLC repeatedly engages with Reese, including its discussion of the limited alternatives available to young adults under federal law. A person between 18 and 20 may sometimes acquire a handgun through a gift or a private intrastate transfer by an unlicensed seller, but those avenues vary considerably in practical availability and may be restricted by state law. The OLC memorandum treats the dealer prohibition as significant precisely because it shuts young adults out of the principal retail firearms market.
The opinion is nonetheless not a judicial invalidation of the statutes nationwide. Sections 922(b)(1) and 922(c)(1) remain in the United States Code. OLC’s conclusion governs DOJ’s legal position and its exercise of federal criminal-enforcement authority, but it does not bind federal courts, state courts, Congress, state officials, or future administrations. DOJ’s September 18 press release accordingly describes the result in enforcement terms: the federal prohibition “may not be enforced” against licensed dealers making covered sales consistent with the Second Amendment.
That institutional distinction may prove especially important in the near term. Dealers, ATF, and the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System will need to determine how the opinion translates into day-to-day transactions while the statutory text remains unchanged. The memorandum itself notes that ATF regulations implementing the federal restrictions are under reconsideration.
Florida consequences
The federal opinion has already become part of Florida’s debate over the state’s under-21 firearm-purchase restriction. Florida’s 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act prohibits individuals under 21 from purchasing firearms, including rifles and shotguns, through commercial sales. That statute was enacted in the immediate aftermath of the 2018 Parkland school shooting and is broader in subject matter than the federal statute examined by OLC: Florida’s restriction concerns long guns, while the federal provisions at issue concern handguns and handgun ammunition.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier welcomed DOJ’s opinion, writing that DOJ had “followed suit in the fight for Second Amendment rights” and saying he looked forward to working with the Legislature to repeal Florida’s restriction. The Florida Phoenix reports that Uthmeier previously concluded that Florida’s law was unconstitutional and directed his office not to defend it in litigation. The National Rifle Association’s challenge to the Florida law ultimately did not receive Supreme Court review; the Court denied certiorari on June 30.
The issue is likely to be a live one in the 2027 legislative session. Florida House Republicans have approved repeal legislation during each of the last four legislative sessions, according to the Florida Phoenix, but the proposals have not become law because of opposition in the Florida Senate. Gov. Ron DeSantis, Republican gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds, and Florida gun-rights organizations have all opposed the age restriction, while Democratic gubernatorial candidate David Jolly has said it should remain in place.
The political stakes reflect sharply competing assessments of risk. Gun-rights advocates argue that adults old enough to vote, serve in the military, enter contracts, and face adult criminal punishment should not be categorically excluded from lawful firearms purchases. Gun-safety advocates counter that 18-to-20-year-olds commit gun homicides at disproportionately high rates and that age restrictions serve an important public-safety function. Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt told the Florida Phoenix that people in the 18-to-20 age group commit gun homicides at three times the rate of adults 21 and older and argued that the DOJ position bypasses a policy that enjoys broad public support.
What happens next
The immediate legal result is narrower than a statutory repeal but broader than an ordinary litigation position. DOJ has taken the view that it cannot constitutionally pursue criminal penalties against federally licensed dealers for selling handguns to otherwise law-abiding adults ages 18 through 20. That conclusion could materially change the availability of retail handgun purchases for young adults if federal agencies implement it consistently.
Yet the core constitutional issue remains unsettled outside DOJ. Other courts may evaluate the historical record differently; Congress could amend the statute; a future executive branch could alter its interpretation; and states may continue to enforce independent age-based restrictions unless courts hold those laws unconstitutional. In Florida, the memorandum is more likely to function immediately as legal and political ammunition in the pending debate over the state’s long-gun purchase age than as a self-executing invalidation of the 2018 law.
Politics
U.S. Senate Toss-up Races
As of the latest Cook Political Report ratings dated Sept. 23, seven U.S. Senate contests are rated Toss Up—meaning either party has a realistic chance to win. Four are Democratic-held or Democratic-aligned seats, and three are Republican-held or Republican-aligned seats.
Toss-up Senate races
The Cook ratings list Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Texas as the current toss-up Senate contests. Cook’s definition of Toss Up is that either party has a good chance of winning.
Majority implications
Republicans currently hold a 53–47 Senate majority, with the 47-seat Democratic caucus including two independents. Democrats therefore need a net gain of four seats to secure an outright 51-seat majority if the vice presidency remains Republican; if Democrats win the vice presidency in 2028, the relevant governing threshold would differ, but that is not at issue in the 2026 midterm Senate elections.
The central battlefield is unusually asymmetric:
- Democrats are defending the open Michigan and New Hampshire seats, plus Sen. Jon Ossoff’s Georgia seat, though Cook moved Georgia from Lean Democratic to Likely Democratic on September 23.
- Republicans are defending several of the most competitive opportunities for Democrats: Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, Texas, and North Carolina. North Carolina is rated Lean Democratic rather than Toss Up in Cook’s current ratings.
- Cook recently moved Kansas from Likely Republican to Lean Republican and South Carolina from Solid Republican to Likely Republican, signaling a broader shift toward Democrats even though neither race has reached Toss Up.
The most recent Cook US Senate Toss-up ratings:
Seats with incumbents”
Alaska: Senator Dan Sullivan (R) NRA endorsed against Representative Mary Peltota A rated.
Maine: Senator Susan Collins- (R)-NRA endorsed against Troy Jackson (D) F rated.
Ohio: Senator Jon Husted (R)-NRA endorsed against Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) F rated.
Open Seats:
Iowa-Ashley Halsey (R) A+ rated NRA endorsed against Josh Turek (D) C rated.
Michigan: Rep. Mike Rodgers A rated NRA endorsed against Abdul El Sayed (D) F rated.
New Hampshire: John E. Sununu A rated NRA endorsed against Chris Pappas (D) F rated.
Texas: Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) A rated NRA endorsed against James Talarico (D) F rated.
Important forecaster difference
Not every respected forecaster uses the same line. Sabato’s Crystal Ball, updated Sept. 22, moved Iowa from Lean Republican to Toss Up, but moved Michigan from Toss Up to Lean Democratic. Thus, Iowa is now a clear cross-forecaster battleground, while Michigan’s classification depends on the rating system used.
