Feds Fight to Keep 18-20 Handgun Win Limited to Three States
The federal government is trying to keep a Second Amendment win for 18-to-20-year-olds as narrow as possible. On Nov. 4, 2026, the Second Amendment Foundation filed a reply brief with the Fifth Circuit asking the court to expand an injunction that protects only its members in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The case is FPC v. ATF, formerly Reese v. ATF, and SAF is joined by the Louisiana Shooting Association and Firearms Policy Coalition. The government now says it will no longer enforce the federal handgun purchase ban against adults under 21 anywhere in the country. It argues that this voluntary stance makes the lawsuit moot. SAF says that promise is not worth much without a court order behind it.
Key Details
The dispute turns on the scope of relief, not on whether the law survived. The Fifth Circuit panel ruled in 2025 that the federal ban on handgun purchases by adults under 21 violates the Second Amendment. The panel sent the case back to the district court to enter judgment. The district court entered judgment on Jan. 27, 2026, and limited the injunction to SAF and partner members who lived in Texas, Mississippi, or Louisiana and who were members when judgment was entered.
- Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (appeal of district court scope ruling)
- Relief granted: Members in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana only, and only those enrolled as of Jan. 27, 2026
- Government position: Nationwide non-enforcement policy makes the case moot
- SAF position: Non-enforcement is not permanent, and the government offered no evidence that ATF stopped enforcement or told licensed dealers to process these sales
- Co-plaintiffs: Louisiana Shooting Association and Firearms Policy Coalition
Bill Sack, SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations, called the government's position self-defeating. He said the government agrees the law is unconstitutional, yet still fights to keep the injunction from protecting more people. Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and Executive Vice President, noted the brief landed almost six years to the day after the original 2020 filing. He called the case overdue and said the law belongs "in the wastebin of history."
Background
The federal ban at issue bars licensed dealers from selling handguns to people under 21, a restriction that sits in federal firearms law and is enforced by ATF. Congress and the agency never drew a sharp line between handguns and long guns in the way the statute treats young buyers, and that gap has fueled much of the litigation. The Fifth Circuit's 2025 ruling in Reese applied the Supreme Court's text-and-history framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which requires the government to justify firearm restrictions with historical analogues. The circuits have not agreed. The Fourth Circuit upheld the federal restriction in McCoy v. ATF in 2025, and the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc upheld Florida's under-21 purchase law the same year. That split is the reason this issue keeps moving toward the Supreme Court. The district court's narrow injunction followed the Fifth Circuit's remand, and SAF appealed that scope limit. The government's later non-enforcement announcement changed the posture of the case without changing the statute.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
If you are 18, 19, or 20, the practical question is simple: can a licensed dealer sell you a handgun today? Under the government's current policy, the answer appears to be yes, but a policy can change with the next administration or the next memo. The narrow injunction covers only SAF and partner members in three states who were enrolled before Jan. 27, 2026. Anyone outside that group, including young adults in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, has no court order protecting their purchases. Florida's own under-21 purchase law also remains in effect under the Eleventh Circuit's ruling, so state rules still matter. Dealers may follow the most conservative reading of federal rules, which means some will still ask for proof of age and may refuse a sale. Watch for the Fifth Circuit's scope decision, any government filing that withdraws the non-enforcement position, and any Supreme Court petition in the split cases. Do not assume a memo is a legal shield. Get the ruling in writing if you need it.
DownRange Analysis
The government's mootness argument is weak on its face. Voluntary cessation of a challenged practice rarely ends a case, because the defendant can resume the conduct once the pressure fades. The government's brief apparently concedes the statute is unconstitutional, and yet it wants to keep relief limited to a shrinking list of members. That posture asks courts to protect the government's flexibility, not the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds. SAF's point about missing evidence is the sharpest one. If ATF has not changed its dealer instructions, a memo is just a promise. Market effects are real but limited. Dealers who serve young buyers still face a legal gray zone, and that uncertainty makes some stores cautious. For now, a gun owner under 21 should confirm the current federal and state rules before buying, keep documentation, and treat any injunction as a membership-based shield, not a national right. Pressure the court to rule on scope, not on mootness.
