The Eastern District of Louisiana has issued a judgment in Reese v. ATF, a landmark Second Amendment challenge brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), declaring the federal law that prevents licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to adults under 21 years old to be unconstitutional.
However, the accompanying injunctive relief has been severely restricted, leading to a situation where the law is deemed unconstitutional but its enforcement is allowed to continue against almost all individuals it affects.
The judgment follows a ruling earlier this year by a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held the young adult handgun purchase ban was unconstitutional and remanded the case for the district court to enter a judgment.
READ: Schumer-Aligned Super PAC Urges Continued Pressure On GOP Amid Shutdown Fight
Relief Limited to a “Zero” Population
In a controversial move, the District Court appears to have adopted the Government’s position, dramatically limiting the scope of the injunction.
- The court ruled that the challenged ban violates the rights of 18- to 20-year-olds.
- Simultaneously, the court adopted a restrictive view of the injunction, effectively protecting a population of people that the plaintiffs claim is “essentially zero.”
The judgment strictly limits the organizational membership relief to individuals who were members of the plaintiff organizations—which include the SAF, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association—as of November 6, 2020 (the filing date of the case), and who are located within the geographical bounds of the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana). Furthermore, the court has demanded that the plaintiff organizations produce a list of these specific members within 21 days.
“Frustrating” and “Almost Laughable” Outcome
SAF leaders expressed profound frustration with the ruling’s practical effect.
READ: Florida Rep. Donalds Slams Dems ‘Lack Of Moral Clarity’ Over Virginia AG Candidate Jay Jones
Adam Kraut, SAF Executive Director, called the order’s practical effect “almost laughable if it wasn’t so frustrating,” arguing the court has set an impossible standard for an 18-year-old to avoid the unconstitutional ban—requiring residency in one of three states and membership in SAF since age 13.
“What the court has done here is say that this law is unconstitutional, but in order for an 18-year-old to avoid having their constitutional rights trounced by it today they must live in one of only three states in the nation and have been the member of SAF at age 13,” Kraut said. He added that the requirement to disclose membership lists to the government raises serious concerns about the right to free association and privacy.
Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and Executive Vice President, criticized the judgment for challenging “commonly accepted standards of associational standing and relief.” Gottlieb argued that when organizations like SAF win, the relief should flow to the entire membership, not just a small, select subset.
The plaintiffs, which also include three private citizens—Joseph Granich, Emily Naquin, and the case’s namesake, Caleb Reese—are currently examining their options regarding the limited relief and preparing for the next legal steps in what remains a vigorous challenge to the federal law.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
