Hirschfeld et al v. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al, No. 3:2018cv00103 - Document 48 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 10/4/19. (hnw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hirschfeld et al v. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al Doc. 48 &' R > : * lcE U.s.DlsT.couKr ATR- OG :VA FILED IN THE U NITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT 0F V IR GW IA CHA RLOU ESV ILLE DIV ISION 22T 2j 2219 JU BY; . UD P , CL LERK TAN NER H IRSCHFELD AND NA TALIA M ARSHA LL Plaintiffs CivilA ction No.3:18CV 00103 M EM O R ANDUM OPINIO N THE BUREAU OF A LCOHOL, TOBA ccO,FIREAR M S A r Ex PLO sIvEs,ET AL., By:H on.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesD istrictJudge D efendants PlaintiffsTannerHirschfeldandNataliaMarshall(theEtprospectiveBuyers'')challengethe constitutionality of federal crim inalstam tes making it unlaw ful for federal firearm s licensees ($TFLs'')tosellhandgunsandhandgunammunitiontopeopleunder21yearsofage,18U.S.C.jj 922(b)(1),(c),and federalregulationsimplementing those statutory provisions,27 C.F.R.jj 478.99(b)(1),478.12444,478.96(19 (together,thetichallengedLaws'').TheProspectiveBuyers seekadeclaratoryjudgmentthattheChallengedLawsviolatetheirSecondAmendmentrightsto keep and bear arm s,and also violate theirFifth Am endm entrightsto equalprotection ofthe law . Onthatbasis,theProspectiveBuyersalsoseektoenjoinenforcementoftheChallengedLawsby theBureauofAlcohol,Tobacco,Firearms,andExplosives($W TF'');ThomasE.Brandon,inhis officialcapacity asthe Deputy and Acting D irectorofATF;and W illiam P.Bam lin his official capacityasAttomeyGeneraloftheUnitedStates(together,theEçGovernmenf). The Governm entm oved to dism issunderRule 12 oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure. ECF N o.15. The Prospective Buyers and the Governm entagree there is no dispute ofm aterial 1W illiam P.Barr is now the Attorney Generalofthe United States,and he is autom atically substituted as a party pursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure25(d). Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 18 Pageid#: 601 Dockets.Justia.com fact in this case and therefore no need fordiscovery or a trial,asthe suitcan be resolved on the legalm eritsand the briefs.ECF N o.26 at2. The Prospective Buyers cross-m oved forsum m ary judgmentunderRule 56. ECF No.31. AmicipartiesBrady andtheGiffordsLaw Centerto PreventGunViolence(together,theçW miciParties'')filedbriefsinsupportoftheGovenzment. ECF N os.28,38. Forthe reasons setforth below ,the courtw illgrantthe G overnm ent's motion todismissanddenytheProspectiveBuyers'motionforsummaryjudgment. Backeround TheProspectiveBuyersaretwoadultcitizensundertheageoftwenty-one.Compl!!24, 30.BothProspectiveBuyerswishtopurchaseahandgunforselfdefense.Ld=.!!27,34.Eachof the Prospective Buyers attempted to purchase handguns and am m unition from localFFLS,but weredeniedduetotheiragepursuanttothe'challengedLaws.ld.!!25,36.Plaintiffsallegethat butforthe Challenged L aws,both ProspectiveBuyersw ould be perm itted to purchase handguns. Ld.. a!!24-26,29,36-37. Statutorv Backeround Together, the Challenged Law s prevent adults under the age of 21 from purchasing handgunsfrom FFLS. Under18U. S.C.j922(b)(1),itis: unlaw ful for any licensed importer, licensed m anufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sellor deliver any tsrearm or amm unition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years ofage,and,ifthe firearm ,oram munition isotherthan a shotgun or rifle,or am m unition fora shotgun orritle,to any individualwho the licenseeknows orhas reasonable cause to believe is lessthan tw enty-one yearsofage. 27C.F.R.j478.99(b)(1)containssubstantivelyidenticallanguage.z 18U.S.C.j9224c)provides 2Theregulation providesthat: A licensed im porter,licensed manufacturer,licensed dealer,orlicensed collectorshallnotsellor deliver(1)anyfirearm orammunitiontoanyindividualwhotheimporter,manufacmrer,dealer,or collectorknowsorhasreasonablecausetobelieveislessthan 12yearsofage,and,ifthefirearm, oram munition,isotherthanashotgunorrifle,oram munitionforashotgunorrifle,toanyindividual Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 2 of 18 Pageid#: 602 in relevantpartthat:1$a licensed importer,licensed m anufacturer,or licensed dealer m ay sella Grearm to a person who does notappear in person atthe licensee'sbusinessprem ises ...only if the transferee subm its to the transferor a sworn statem ent''affirm ing ççthat,in the case of any fireann otherthan a shotgun ora rifle,1am twenty-oneyearsorm ore ofage....'' 27 C.F.R.j478.124/)mandatesthat(tlaqlicensed importer,licensedmanufacturer,or licensed dealershallnotsellorotherwise dispose,tem porarily orperm anently,ofany firearm to any person,otherthan another licensee,unless the licensee recordsthe transaction on a fireal'm s transactionrecord,Form 4473....''27C.F.R.j478.961)imposesthesamerestrictionsonoutof-state and m ailordersales. Form 4473 requiresthatan FFL entera prospective tsrearm buyer's ortransferee'sbirthdate(Box 7)and describethetypeofGreanu (Box 16),andstatesthatthe inform ation provided Eçw illbe used to detenuine''w hetherthe buyer or transferee is ç'prohibited from receiving afirearm .''A TF,Form 4473,available athlps://- .atf.gov/lrea= s/docs/4473- pad-l-frea= s-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-fo= -s3oog/download. LeeislativeH istorv The Challenged Law s arose from a çtm ulti-year inquiry into violent crim e that included Stseld investigation and public hearings.''' N at'lRitle A ss'n.ofA m .pInc.v.Bureau ofA lcohol. Tobacco.Firearms.& Explosives,700F.3d 185,198(5thCir.2012),rehearing en bancdenied, 714F.3d334(5thCir.2013),cert.denied,571U.S.1196(2014)(CBATFE'')(quotingS.Rep.No. 88-1340,at1(1964:.Congressfoundthatyoungpeoplewereresponsibleforasignificantportion ofcrimenationally. See,e.a..S.Rep.No.90-1097,at77(1968)(tsglluvenilesaccountforsome 49 percentofthe arrestsforserious crim esin the United States and m inorsaccountfor64 percent whothe importer,m anufacturer,dealer,orcollectorknowsorhasre% onable causeto believe isless than 21yearsofage.... 27C.F.R.j478.99(b)(1). Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 3 of 18 Pageid#: 603 of (such)totalarrests'). Law enforcementsubmitted çtstatistics documenting the misuse of tsreal' m sbyjuvenilesandminors,''whichççltookjon addedsignitkancewhen oneconsidersthe factthatin each Jfthejurisdictions...the lawfulacquisition ofconcealablesrearmsby these personswasprohi rbited by statute,''S.Rep.No.89-1866,at58-59 (1966),and in lightofthe ççseriousproblem ofindividuals going across State linesto procure firearm sw hich they could not law fully obtain orpossessin theirow n State and withouttheknow ledgeoftheirlocalauthorities,'' id.at19. Thatinquiry also found thatççthe handgun isthe type offirearm thatisprincipally used in the com m ission ofseriouscrim e,''and Eçthem osttroublesom e and diffcultfactorin theunlawful use offirearm s.'' 1d.at4-7. lndeed,the handgun's Stsize,weight,and compactnessm ake iteasy tocarry,toconceal,todisposeof,ortotransport,''and$çga)1lthesefactorsmakeittheweaponmost susceptibleto crim inaluse.'' ld. Congress furtherfound a %icausalrelationship between the easy availability''ofhandguns EEandjuvenileand youthfulcriminalbehavior,andthatsuch fireal'mshavebeen widelysoldby federally licensed importersand dealersto emotionally immature,orthrill-bentjuvenilesand minorspronetocriminalbehavior.'' Pub.L.No.90-351,j901(a)(6),82 Stat.197,225-226. Congressfocusedontheçiclandestineacquisitionoftsrearmsbyjuvenilesandminors,''which it found posed $Ga m ostseriousproblem facing law enforcem entand the citizensofthiscountry.'' S. R ep.N o.90-1097,at79. Congress lldesigned''the Challenged Law s çsto m eet this problem and to substantially curtailit.''ld.ButCongressdid notintend to enactawhole c10th ban on m inorsow ning handguns: $ç(A)minororjuvenilewouldnotberestrictedfrom owning,orlearningtheproperusageof(a) firearm ,since any fireal' m w hich hisparentorguardian desired him to have could be obtained for theminororjuvenilebytheparentorguardian.''S.Rep-No.89-1866,at58-59.M inors,therefore, 4 Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 4 of 18 Pageid#: 604 couldpossesshandgunsiftheirparentsdeem edthem responsibleenoughtodo so.ççA. tthem ost'' the Challenged Laws tçcause m inor inconveniences to certain youngsters who are m ature,law abiding,and responsible, by requiring that a parent or guardian over 21 years of age m ake a handgunpurchaseforanypersonunder21.'' 114Cong.Rec.12279,12309(1968)(statementof Sen.ThomasJ.Dodd,Chairman,Sen.Subcomm.onJuvenileDelinquency). H istorv ofA ee-Based Firearm s Rezulations Legislatures enacted age-based restrictions on firearm purchases,use, and possession before the Challenged Law s,however. Over the course of the nineteenth and early twentieth century,m any statesenacted restrictionson gun ow nership and useby certain categoriesofpeople forpublicsafety reasons- including thoseunderacertain age.By the 1920s,roughly halfofthe stateshad set21 asthe m inim um age forthe use and possession certain tsrearm s. See ECF N o. 16-2(collectingstatutes).ttikethefederallegislationthatfollowed,stateregulationssometimes reflectedconcernsthatjuvenileslackedthejudgmentnecessarytosafelypossessdeadlyweapons, andthatjuvenileaccessto suchweaponswouldincreasecrime.''United Statesv.ReneE.,583 F.3d 8,14 (1stCir.2009). Indeed,ç$anumberofstatesenactedsimilarstatutesprohibiting.the transferofdeadlyweapons--pftenexpresslyhandguns- tojuveniles.''ld. Courts ofthe tim e upheld these types oflaws. See,e.a.,Parm an v.Lem m on,244 P.227, 228 (Kan.1925) (observing thatçEmany ofthe states''had lawssimilarto thatmaking ita m isdem eanorto ççsell,trade,give,loan orotherwise furnish any pistol,revolverortoy pistol...to any m inor''as<t protective lawsenacted to preventoccurrences''liketheaccidentalshooting in that case);Statev.Ouail,92A.859,859(De1.Gen.Sess.1914)(refusingtodismissindictmentbased onstatutecriminalizingççknowinglysellling)adeadlyweapontoaminorotherthanan ordinary pocketknife''l;Statev.Allen,94 Ind.441,442 (1884)(reversing dismissalofindictmentfor Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 5 of 18 Pageid#: 605 çEunlawfully barterging)andtradging)to...aminorundertheageoftwenty-oneyears,acertain deadly and dangerous weapon,to wit:a pistol,commonly called a revolver'');Tankersly v. Commonwea1th,9S.W .702,702(Ky.1888)(indictmentforsellingadeadlyweapontoaminor); Statev.Callicutt 69Tenn.714,716-17 (1878)(affrmingthatGitheactstopreventthesale,gift, orloan ofapistolorotherlikedangerousweapon to a minor,''were Ssnotonly constitutionalas tending to preventcrim e butw iseand salutary in allitsprovisions,''and denying thatççtheright1to keep andbeararms'...necessarilyimpliestherighttobuyorotherwiseacquire(arms),andthe rightin othersto give,sell,orloan to him'');Coleman v.State,32 Ala.581,582-83 (1858) (afGrmingconvictionunderstatuteEçmakling)itamisdemeanorto çsell,orgive,orlend,toany maleminory'apistol''). Sim ilarly,legalscholarsofthe tim e accepted thatççthe State may prohibitthesale ofarm sto minors.''ThomasM .Cooley,TreatiseonConstitmionalLimitations740n.4(5thed.1883);seealso DistrictofColumbiav.Heller.554U.S.570,616-18(2008)(describingProfessorCooley'swork as GEm assively popular''and citing itaspersuasive authority on Founding-era attitudeson the Second Amendment).ProfessorCooleyalsorecognizedthatSçthewantofcapacityininfants''couldjustifyç:a regulation...restrictingtheirrightsEandjprivileges''asaclass.Cooley,supra,at486.Andevidence suggests thatfulladulthood,atthe tim e ofthe Founding,w as notreached untilage 21. W illiam Blackstone,1CommentariesOnTheLawsOfEngland 463 (1sted.1765)(<çSothatfullagein male orfemale,istwenty oneyears...whotillthattime isan infant,and so styled in law.''); Infant,Black'sLaw Dictionary847(11thed.2019)(legalinfancylastsuntilage21)(citingsources 9om 1878,1899,and1974). StandardsofR eview Rule12(b)(6)permitsapartytomovefordismissalofacomplaintforfailuretostatea claim uponwhichreliefcanbegranted.çTorpurposesofRule12(b)(6),thelegislativehistoryof Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 6 of 18 Pageid#: 606 anordinanceisnotamatterbeyondthepleadingsbutisanadjuncttotheordinancewhichmaybe considered by the courtas a m atter of law .'' Anheuser-Busch.Inc.v.Schm oke,63 F.3d 1305, 1312 (4th Cir.1995),vacatedonotherarounds.517U.S.1206(1996),readopted.101F.3d 325 (4thCir.1996),cert.denied,520U.S.1204(1997).tçlnaddition,acourtmaytakejudicialnoticeof m attersofpublic record in considering a m otion to dism iss.''Lew isv.N ew ton.616 F.App'x 106, 106(4thCir.2015). Summaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedonly ifthemovingpartyhasshownthatthereisno genuineissueofmaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatterof1aW. SeeCelotex Corp.v.Catrett 477U.S.317,325(1986). D iscussion 1. The C hallenqed Laws Do NotV iolatethe Second Am endm ent The Second A m endm entprovides that:CçA wellregulated M ilitia,being necessary to the security ofa free State,therightofthepeopleto keep and bearA rm s,shallnotbe infringed.'' U.S. Const.am end.11.In D istrictofColuntbiav.Heller,the Suprem e Courtdeterm ined thatthe Second Am endm ent protects an individual itright of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arm s in defenseofhearthandhome.''554U.S.at635(emphasisadded).' fheCourtheldthattheDistrict ofColum bia'sban on possession ofhandgunsin the hom e and itsrequirem entthata1lfirearm sin the hom e be stored in a m alm erthatrendered them inoperable for im m ediate self-defense w ere unconstimtional.Id.TheSupremeCourtnoted,however,thatççgljikemostrights,therightsecured by the Second A m endm entisnotunlim ited.'' Id.at626. The Courtprovided anon-cIexhaustive'' list of Stpresumptively law ful regulatory m easures,'' including çllongstnding prohibitions'' on fireal'm possession by certain groupsofpeople,and GGlaw sim posing conditionsand qualifications on the com m ercialsale ofarm s.'' 1d.at626-27 & n.26. The Courtçsm ade itclear in Hellerthat Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 7 of 18 Pageid#: 607 gitsqholdingdidnotcastdoubt''onsuchmeasuresandGGrepeatged)thoseassurances''inMcDonald v.CityofChicazo,561U.S.742,786(2010)(plurality). The United StatesCourtofAppealsforthe Fourth Circuitappliesatwo-parttestin Second Am endm ent claim s. Ct'rhe first question is w hether the challenged law imposes a burden on conductfallingwithinthescopeoftheSecondAmendment'sguarantee.''UnitedSttesv.Chester, 628F.3d 673,680(4thCir.2010.)(quotationmarksomitted). Ei-l-hishistoricalinquiry seeksto determ ine w hetherthe conductatissue w as understood to bew ithin the scope ofthe rightatthe timeofratiûcation.lfitwasnot,thenthechallenged1aw isvalid-''1d.(citationsomitted).lfthe Second Am endm ent applies, courts apply lsan appropriate form of m eans-end scrutiny.'' 1d. (tlleller leftopen the issue of the standard ofreview,rejecting only rational-basis review. Accordingly,unless the conduct atissue is notprotected by the Second A m endm entat all,the Govemmentbearstheburdenofjustifyingtheconstitutionalvalidityofthelaw.''ld. W hile the Fourth Circuithasunfailingly applied a scrutiny analysis,courtstsare atliberty to''avoid ruling on thetsrstprong ofthe Chestertest,and ççassum ethata challenged statuteburdens conduct protected by the Second A m endm ent and focus instead on w hether the burden is constimtionallyjustifable-''UnitedStatesv.Hosford,843F.3d 161,167(4thCir.2016).lndeed, the Fourth Circuit has found itStprudent''to notrest on the firstprong's historicalinquiry. Id. (fndingittiprudentinthiscasetoassume,withoutholding,thatthefederalprohibition against unlicensedfireann dealingburdensconductprotectedbytheSecondAmendmenf');W oollardv. Gallagher,712F.3d865,875(4thCir.2013)(çç(W )earenotobligedtoimpartadefinitivenlling atthesrststep ofthe Chesterinquiry.A nd indeed,we and othercourtsofappealshavesom etim es deem ed itprudentto instead resolve post-l-lellerchallengesto firearm prohibitions atthe second step.'');UnitedStatesv.M asciandaro,638F.3d458,470(4thCir.2011)(assumingthattheSecond Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 8 of 18 Pageid#: 608 Am endm entw as im plicated by a statute prohibiting possession offirearm s in nationalparks and applyingintermediatescrutiny). The ProspectiveBuyerswould have the courtignore binding Fourth Circuitprecedentand apply a testfocused on ççtext,history,and tradition''in analyzing Second A m endm ent claim s, ratherthan strictorinterm ediatescrutiny.ECF No.32 at21-24.TheG ovem m ent,m oreobliquely perhaps,would have the oourtavoid discussion of any scrutiny analysis, as evidenced by its briefing. Butthe G ovenzm entdoesnotexplain w hy the courtshould notbe bound by the Fourth Circuit'stwo-parttest,and in fact,doesnotappearto m ention itin any ofitsbrietsng. A surged only by the Am iciParties,butbound by precedent,the courtfollow s the Fourth Circuit's two-step fram ew ork for analyzing Second Am endm entclaim s. Indeed,the courtm ust do so regardlessofwhetherthe partiesinvoke the standard,and irrespective ofthe parties'views on w hetheritw ascorrectly decided. See Dan Ryan Builders.lnc.v.CrvstalRidae Dev..Inc.,783 F.3d976,980(4thCir.2015)(çW party'sfailuretoidentifytheapplicablelegalrulecertainlydoes notdiminishacourt'sresponsibilitytoapplythatrule....(1Jtiswellestablishedthat$Ewlhenan issue or claim isproperly before the court,the courtis notlim ited to the particular legaltheories advanced by theparties,butratherretainsthe independentpow ertp identify and apply theproper constructionofgoveming 1aw.''')(quotingKamenv.KemperFin.Servs..Inc.,500U.S.90,99 (1991)).Itbearsnotingthattenothercircuitcourtsofappealshaveappliedthesamemethodology, m aking the parties'argum ents for a change in the 1aw unpersuasive,even ifthe courtwere not boundbytheFourth Circuit. SeeKolbev.Hogan,849F.3d 114,132-33 (4th Cir.2017),cert. denied.138S.Ct.469(2017)(collectingcasesandconfirmingthattçlljikemostofoursistercourts ofappeals''theFourthCircuitappliesatwo-partanalysis);Gouldv.M organ,907F.3d659,669 (1stCir.2018). 9 Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 9 of 18 Pageid#: 609 The C halleneed Laws Are Faciallv V alid ççunderthewellrecognized standard forassessing afacialchallengeto theconstim tionality ofa statute,the Suprem e Courthas long declared thata statute calm otbeheld unconstitutionalif ithasconstitutionalapplication.'' United Statesv.Moore,666 F.3d 313,318 (4th Cir.2012). Thus,to succeed in a facialconstitutionalchallenge,a movantiçmustestablish thatno set of circum stancesexistsunderwhich theActwould bevalid.''United Statesv.Salerno,481U .S.739, 745(1987).Becauseofthisstringentstandard,afacialchallengeis(tthemostdifficultchallenge to m ountsuccessfully.''1d.Courtsm ay dism issa facialchallenge<çby referenceto the challenged regulation and itslegislative history.'' Educ.M edia Co.atV irginia Tech v.Sw ecker,602 F.3d 583,588(4thCir.2010).tsAndwhilecourtsgenerallyengagein (Chester'sqtwo-prongedanalysis forfacialSecondAmendmentchallenges,(Fourth Circuitqprecedentsimplifesthatanalysisfor prohibitionsdeem ed Gpresum ptively law ful'in H eller.'' H osford,843 F.3d at165. Applying Heller,the Fourth Circuithasupheld sim ilarage-based restrictionson the sale of srearm s. The Fourth Circuit ruled in Hosford that Esthe prohibition againstunlicensed fireal' m dealing''establishedby 18U.S.C.j922(a)(1)(A)was:çalongstandingconditionorqualitication onthecommercialsaleoffirearmsand()thusfaciallyconstittltional.''843F.3dat166.ççFirst'' theFourth Circuitexplained,Rthe regulation coversonly the com m ercialsale offirearm s-'' Id.In otherwords,ttlijtaffectgedqonlythosewhoregularlysellGrearms''andEçexplicitlyexcludeld)the vastmajorityofnoncommercialsales.''1d.ççsecond,theregulationimposesamereconditionor qualifcation,''and does notprohibitthe activity altogether. One ofthese conditionsw asagedealersm ustççbe atleasttwenty-one yearsold.'' 1d. Finally,the Fourth Circuitexam ined w hether theregulation w asççlongstanding,''concluding itw asbecause sim ilarregulationswere in place at leastby 1938.1d.at166-67.On thesegrounds,theFourth Circuitconcluded thatthefacialSecond A m endm entchallenge failed. 1d.at 167. 10 Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 10 of 18 Pageid#: 610 Like the provisionsatissue in H osford,the Challenged Law sare facially valid. First,the Challenged Laws concern ççonly the com m ercialsale of firearm s.'' 1d.at 166. The Challenged Lawsonly affectpurchasesfrom commercialsellers:FFLS. Second,they çfimposelqamere condition or qualification''on handgun sales. ld. The Challenged Laws also do not prevent handgun purchasesfrom non-FFL parties,and alternatively,l8-to-zo-year-oldsareperm itted to receivehandgunsfrom theirparents.BATFE,700F.3d at190(citing legislativehistory);ECF No.16-1at3(ATF opinionletterstatingthatETederallaw wasnotintendedtoprecludeaparent orguardianfrom purchasingatireanm andplacingitinthepossessionofaminorchildorward.'').3 M oreover,the Challenged Law sdo 'notrestrictabuyeronceshe turns21.Thus,liketheprovisions in H osford,the Challenged Law sarenotKçso prohibitive asto turn this condition orqualifk ation into a functionalprohibition''on the ow nership offireanns. 843 F.3d at 166. Applying the final prong ofanalysisunderH osford,the Challenged Laws reflectççlongstanding''prohibitions on the use orpossession ofhandgunsby those undera given age. Sim ilarrestrictionshave been in place andupheldbycourtssincethenineteenth century.Seesupraat5. -6(discussingstatestatutesand courtdecisions);BATFE.700 F.3d at203 (Restricting 'tthe ability of l8-to-zo-year-oldsto purchase handguns from FFLS...is consistentw ith a longstanding tradition oftargeting select groups'abilitytoaccessandtousearmsforthesakeofpublicsafety.'l. Thus,theChallenged Law s are am ong the Kflongstanding prohibitions'' and çiconditions and qualifications on the com m ercialsale ofarm s,''w hich the Suprem e Courtin H eller did notçtcastdoubt''on. 554 U .S. at626-27. 3Thecourtdoesnotintend to callinto question thegeneralban on so-called Rstraw purchases''offirearm s. See cenerallvAbramskiv.UnitedStates.573U.S.169(2014).Moreover,thecourtfindsnoconflictbetweenthebanon straw purch% esandthisparentalexception:both areequallysupportedbythe legislativehistory oftheChallenged Laws.Seej . /.aat181-87(discussingtextandlegislativehistoryofGunControlActof1968,andnotingthatCongress didnotprohibitgivingfireanusasgifts). Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 11 of 18 Pageid#: 611 b. The Challeneed Law sA re Valid asA pplied to the Prospective Buvers Yetthe Fourth Circuithas recognized thateven ifa st tute is facially constitutional,EEthe phrase Gpresumptively lawfulregulatory m easures'suggests the possibility that one or m ore of these çlongstanding'regulations'could beunconstitutionalin thefaceofan as-applied challenge.'' Chester,628F.3dat679(quotingUnited Statesv.W illiams,616F.3d685,692(7thCir.2010)) (emphasisinChester).Thecourt,therefore,alsoanalyzestheProspectiveBuyers'claimsonan as-applied basis. i. TheChalleneed LawsA reO utside theScopeofthe Second A m endm ent First,the courtexam ineswhetherthe Challenged Law sareoutside the scopeofthe Second A m endm ent. The courtlooks to historicalunderstanding to determ ine the scope of the Second Amendment. See Heller,554 U.S.at 577-628 (interpreting Second Amendmentbased on historicaltraditions);M asciandaro,638F.3dat470 Csll-lqistoricalmeaning enjoysaprivileged interpretiveroleintheSecondAmendmentcontext-').TheFifth CircuitinBATFE analyzedthis issue,recounting m uch the sam e history asthe parties in this case,and ruled thatthe Challenged Lawsdo notimpactSecond Amendmentrights. BATFE,700 F.3d at203-04. First,çEltjhe historicalrecord shows thatgun safety regulation w as com m onplace in the colonies,and around . the tim e of the founding, a variety of gun safety regulations w ere on the books; these included ...laws disarm ing certain groups and restricting sales to certain groups.'' 1d.at 200. Cs N otew orthy am ong these revolutionary and founding-era gun regulations are those thattargeted particulargroupsforpublic safety reasons.'' Ld.. a ç&ln the view ofatleastsom emembers ofthe founding generation,disarm ing selectgroupsforthe sake ofpublic safety wascom patiblew ith the rightto anus specifcally and w ith the idea ofliberty generally.'' Id. U ltim ately,the Fifth Circuit found that $%he ability of 18-20-year-o1ds to purchase handguns from FFLS ...falls outside the Second A m endm ent's protectiony''based on an exam ination ofthe historicalrecord. ld.at203; 12 Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 12 of 18 Pageid#: 612 see also Rene E.,583 F.3d at 16 (<$(T)he founding generation would have regarded''laws prohibiting the possession ofhandguns by those under 18 w ith certain exceptions,tças consistent with the rightto keep and bearanns.''). Thecourtconcludesthatbased on thereasoning in BA TFE,the historicalrecord of legislation,courtdecisions,and scholarship sum m arized above, the Challenged Law sdo notim plicate Second A m endm entrights. ii. The Challeneed Law s Survive Interm ediate Scrutinv The Fifth Circuitproceeded,how ever,to the second step ofitsanalysis,<Gin an abundance of caution''given the tGinstitutionalchallenges''ofa desnitive historicalreview . 1d.at204;see alsoHosford,843F.3d161,167(Gndingit(iprudent''toproceedtoscnztinyanalysis).'I' hecourt follow stheFifth Circuithere. Thus,the courtanalyzeswhetherthe Challenged Law ssurvive the Rappropriate form ofm eans-end scnltiny.'' Chester,628 F.3d at680. Firkt,the courtholdsthatintermediate scrutiny appliesto the Challenged Laws:even if they affect rights in the scope ofthe Second A m endm ent,they do notburden a Sscore''Second Am endmentright. Forclaim s broughtunderthe Second A m endm ent,the appropriate Eçlevelof scnztiny ...depends on the nature ofthe conduct being regulated and the degree to w hich the challenged law burdens the right.'' ld. at 682-83. ln M asciandaro,the Fourth Circuitheld that law s burdening tçcore'' Second Am endm ent conduct receive strict scrutiny,w hile less severe burdensreceive only interm ediate scrutiny. 638 F.3d at471. The Fourth Circuitnoted thatcore SecondAmendmentconductincludesthe Sçfundamentalrightto possessfreannsforself-defense w ithin the hom e. Buta considerable degree ofuncertainty rem ains as to the scope ofthatright beyondthehome....'' 1d.at467 (emphasisadded).t:(Aqswemoveoutsidethehome,Rrearm rightshave alw ays been m ore lim ited,because public safety interests often outweigh individual interestsinselfdefense.''1d.at470(Thettlongstandingout-of-the-home/in-the-homedistinction bearsdirectlyonthelevelofscrutinyapplicable.').Thus,ççlesssevereburdensontheright,laws Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 13 of 18 Pageid#: 613 that m erely regulate rather than restrict,and law s that do notim plicate the central self-defense concernoftheSecondAmendment,maybemoreeasilyjustifed.''ld.(quotingChester,628F.3d at682). Prohibiting adultsbetween the agesof 18 and 20 from buying handgunsfrom an FFL does not im plicate a core Second Am endm ent right. Unlike the statutes at issue in H ellers the Challenged Lawsdo notEGamountl)to aprohibition''ofthe possession (tofan entireclassof çalnn s.'' ' H eller. 554 U .S. at 628. Indeed, the Prospective Buyers are not prohibited from possessing handguns. BATFE,700 F.3d at207. And like those laws in H osford,the Challenged Law sonly im plicate com m ercialtransactions:ççconductoccuning outsidethehom e.'' 843 F.3d at l68(applyingintermediatescrutinytoprohibitionagainstunlicensedGrearm dealing). W hile the Prospective Buyerj argue that they are prevented from purchasing çEnew'' handguns(ECFNo.32at26),theycitenodecisionfndingameaningfuldistinctionbetweennew and used handguns,or factory-new and new -in-box handguns, for purposes of determ ining a SecondAmendmentright. Cf.Heller,554U.S.at627 (TheSecondAmendmentrightisSçnota right to keep and carry any weapon w hatsoever in any m alm er whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'').NordotheProspectiveBuyersrebuttheGovernment'sclaimsthattheProspective Buyers could receive sim ilar handguns from their parents or in sales by non-FFL parties. Ultim ately,the Prospective Buyers concede issues show ing thatthe Challenged Law s im pose a narrow andlimitedburden.TheChallengedLawsonly(1)preventtheProspectiveBuyersfrom purchasinz(butnotpossessing)onetypeoffirearm,factory-new handguns;(2)from onetypeof fireal'msseller,FFLS;and (3)foralimitedperiodoftime,from ages18to20.Accordingly,the Challenged Laws are lim ited enough to avoid strict scrutiny. BATFE, 700 F.3d at 205 (çunquestionably, the challenged federal laws trigger nothing more than Eintermediate' Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 14 of 18 Pageid#: 614 scrutiny...Thenarrow ambitoftheban'stargetmilitatesagainststrictscrutiny.'). Interm ediate scrutiny requires the Governm ent to show içthat there is a reasonable fit betweenthechallengedregulationandasubstantialgovernmentalobjective.'' Chester,628F.3d at683 (internalquoGtion marks omitted). Intermediate scrutiny does notdemand thatthe challenged law Gçbetheleastintrusivemeansofachievingtherelevantgovernmentobjective,or thatthere be no burden w hatsoeveron the individualright in question.'' See M asciandaro.638 F.3d at474.Rather,therem ustbe (ça GtthatisCreasonable,notperfect.''' See W oollard,712 F.3d at878(quotingUnitedStatesv.Carter,669. F.3d411,417(4thCir.2012:. To begin,Congresshasan ççinterestin the protection ofitscitizenry and thepublic safety isnotonly substantial,butcom pelling.'' Kolbe,849 F.3d at 139;M asciandaro,638 F.3d at473 (GtAlthoughthegovernment'sinterestneednotbeçcompelling'underintermediatescrutiny,cases havesometimesdescribedthegovernment'sinterestinpublicsafetyinthatfashion-'')(collecting cases). The courtagreesthere isa Gsreasonable fk''between the Challenged Law s and Congress's interest in the protection of its citizenry and the public safety. The Fifth Circuit's rationale in BA TFE ispersuasive. The text of the statute and legislative history m ake clearthatççcongress designed its schem e to solve a particularproblem :violentcrim e associated w ith the traffcking of handgunsfrom FFLStoyoung adults.''BATFE,700F.3dat207-11(collectinganddiscussing legislativehistory);supraat3-5(recounting legislativehistory andgovernmentfindings). The restriction im posed by the Challenged Law s is also sufficiently narrow . The Prospective Buyers have free reign to buy a handgun once they are21. ln the m eantim e,the Challenged Law spennit youngpeople,viatheirparents,topossesshandguns. BATFE,700F.3d at209(describingthe ChallengedLawsas:$acalibrated,compromiseapproach'').ççA. tthemost,''theChallengedLaws Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 15 of 18 Pageid#: 615 (tcause m inorinconveniencesto certain youngstersw ho are m ature,1aw abiding,and responsible, by requiringthataparentorguardian over21yearsofagem ake ahandgun purchaseforany person under21.'' 114 Cong.Rec.12279,12309 (1968)(Sen.Dodd). Cf.Heller,554 U.S.at635 (strongestSecond Amendmentrightappliesto Eçlaw-abiding,resoonsible citizens'')(emphasis added). ln sum ,the parties persuasively argue that the Challenged Law s survive intermediate scnltiny. W hile the Prospective Buyers offerpolicy disagreem ents with Congress's conclusions and reasoning,ECF N o.32,thatisnotfor courts to decide. Rather itis (çprecisely the type of judgmentthatlegislaturesareallowedtomakewithoutsecond-guessingby acourt.''Kolbe,849 F.3d at140 (upholding stateban on assaultweaponsand high-capacity magazinesin spiteof argumentsagainstlegislativerationale).Indeed,theFourth Circuithasurgedcourtstoapproach Second Am endm entclaim sw ith particularcaution,giving duerespectto thelim itsoftheirArticle I11powers.M asciandaro.638F.3dat475(G%Tothedegreethatwepushtherightbeyondwhatthe Suprem e Court in Heller declared to be its origin, we circum scribe the scope of popular governance,m ove the action into court,and encourage litigation in contexts w e cannotforesee. Thisisseriousbusiness. W e do notw ish to be even m inutely responsible forsom e unspeakably tragicactofmayhem becauseinthepeaceofourjudicialchamberswemiscalculatedastoSecond Amendinentrights.'). H. TheProspectiveBuvers'DueProcessClaimsFail The Prospective Buyers also argue thatthe Challenged Laws violate their rightto equal protection ofthe lawsguaranteed undertheD ue ProcessClause oftlzeFifth Amendm entto theUnited StatesConstitution.Compl.!43;Count11. Rationalbasisappliesto the Challenged Laws'age classilcation. ççgq qualprotection analysis requires strict scrutiny of a legislative classiGcation only when the classifcation Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 16 of 18 Pageid#: 616 im perm issibly interferes w ith the exercise of a fundam entalright or operates to the peculiar disadvantageofasuspectclass.''M ass.Bd.ofRet.v.M umia,427U.S.307,312(1976)(foomotes omitted). Asheld above,the Challenged Laws do notimpermissibly interfere with Second Am endm ent rights,and çGage isnota suspectclassifcation.'' Kim elv.Fla.Bd.ofReaents,528 U.S.62,83(2000);BATFE.700F.3dat211-12(applyingrationalbasistoequalprotectionclaim regardingtheChallengedLawsl. 'TheProspectiveBuyersarguethatyouth shouldbeasuspect class,buthave notconvinced thiscourtthatitshould be the firstto hold asm uch. See,e.g.,A m . EntertainerseL.L.C.v.City ofRocky M ount,888 F.3d 707,723 (4th Cir.2018)(no suspect classificationinlimitingl8-to-zo-year-olds'ownershipofadultbusinesses). S'lBjecausean ageclassification ispresumptivelyrational,theindividualchallenging its constitutionalitybearstheburden ofprovingthatthefactsonwhichtheclassifcàtionisapparently based could notreasopably be conceived to be true by the govern'm entaldecisionm aker.'' K im el, 528 U.S.at 83-84 (internalquotation marks omitted). Accordingly,Ssthe governmentmay Gdiscrim inate on the basis of age w ithout offending' the constitutional guarantee of equal protection <ifthe age classification in question isrationally related to a legitim ate state interest-''' BATFE,700F.3dat212(quotingKimel,528U.S.at83-84). The Prospective Buyers'EqualProtection claim failsas a m atterof law . The courtholds that Congress had a rationalbasis for regulating adults over21 differently from adults under21 forthe sam e reasonsthe Challenged Law ssurvive interm ediate review . BATFE,700 F.3d at212 (holding that age restrictions in the Challenged Laws satisfy rationalbasis reviewl;Am. Entertainers.L.L.C.,888F.3d at723 (localordinance barring l8-to-zo-year-oldsfrom owning adult businesses w as rationally related to prevention of underage drinking tigiven alcohol's availability atmostsuch venues''). Further,the Amicipartieshighlightsubstantialevidence Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 17 of 18 Pageid#: 617 suppoengConpess'sdecislonto&aw tlleliùeatage21.ECFNos.28(neurologicalandsocial scienceresearch),38(s1=11a$.Congrqss'sfad-M ding,thus,couldStre%onablybeconceivedto be'trtze.''Ki-mel.528U .S.at83-84. '* . . TheProspecùveB#yersallegel-aandthecourthnqnoreasontodoubt- théttheyarelaw-' abiding,responsible,and capableadults,renderingtheChsllenged Lawsover-inclusive.Butthat , doesnotm eanthatiechallengedLawsviolatetheProspecfveBuyers'dghtstoEqualProtecion- k' l=el.528U.S.at83 (t$Theraionality commandedby fheEqualProtectlon Clausydoesnot require ...razorlikeprecislon ...UndertlleFourteenth Amendment aStatemayrely onageasa proxy for otherqilslltles,abilifes,or charactedsGcs tllstare Dlevantfo the State's legltlmnte interests ...'Fhatageprovesto be an lnnccùrateprov in any 1ndividllnlcaieisirrelevantnl. . Conclusion Forthereasonsstated,thecourtgrantstheGovemment'smotiontodlsmlqs@ CFNo.15) andderllestheProspeofveBuyers'motioh forsllmmaryjudgment@ CF No.31). TheClerk ls , ' O ectedtoàendcopiesoftiismemorandum opinionandtheaccompanyingordertoatlcotmselof record. , DATED:Tbis *+ . r,201.9 day ofOctobe #. SeiorUnited SttesDistrlctJudge 18 Case 3:18-cv-00103-GEC Document 48 Filed 10/04/19 Page 18 of 18 Pageid#: 618
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
