DOJ declares handgun sales ban for under-21s unconstitutional

On Friday, the Justice Department released a legal opinion declaring that a federal law banning handgun sales to adults between 18 and 20 years old violates the Second Amendment. The ruling came from the Office of Legal Counsel, the department's internal legal advisory body, and represents a significant shift in how the government will enforce decades-old firearms restrictions.

The federal handgun sales ban has been on the books since 1968, when Congress passed the Gun Control Act. That law prohibited licensed dealers from selling handguns or handgun ammunition to anyone under 21, though it allowed sales of rifles and shotguns to the same age group. For more than half a century, this age restriction went largely unchallenged. But in recent years, courts have begun scrutinizing it, and the legal landscape has fractured. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the federal ban is unconstitutional. The Third and Eighth Circuits struck down similar state-level restrictions. Yet the Fourth Circuit upheld the federal age limits, and the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have upheld state-level age restrictions. The Supreme Court, despite its recent expansive interpretation of Second Amendment rights, declined to take up the issue last year.

T. Elliot Gaiser, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, framed the constitutional question in stark terms. He noted that the law treats 18-year-olds as mature enough to be drafted into military service, to vote, to serve on juries, and to receive capital punishment. He pointed to a specific example: an 18-year-old who represented the United States at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics in skeet shooting, and who attended the University of Texas at Arlington. Under current law, it would have been a federal felony for a licensed dealer to sell her a handgun before or after her Olympic competition. The contradiction, Gaiser argued, was untenable under the Constitution.

The opinion itself carries no legal force. It does not overturn the law, does not create binding precedent, and does not change what Congress has written into statute. But its practical effect is likely to be substantial. Federal prosecutors across the country will almost certainly decline to bring felony charges against licensed firearms dealers who knowingly sell handguns to young adults under 21. Without the prospect of prosecution, the law becomes unenforceable in practice. The timing of the opinion—released one day after the Justice Department announced it would not appeal a separate court decision deregulating silencers and short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act—suggested a broader shift in how the administration intends to handle gun regulations.

Gun control advocates responded with alarm. GIFFORDS, a nonprofit organization focused on reducing gun violence, called the decision "the latest move by the Trump administration to refuse to defend the law to please the gun lobby." Executive Director Emma Brown issued a statement warning that people aged 18 to 20 are responsible for a disproportionate share of school shootings, public mass shootings, and gun homicides overall. She argued that minimum age laws exist for a reason and pledged to fight the decision. The organization framed the move as capitulation to donors in the gun industry rather than a principled legal interpretation.

The split in the federal courts reflects genuine constitutional tension. The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it has never been absolute—the government has long restricted who can own guns and what kinds of weapons are permissible. The question of where to draw the line for young adults sits at the intersection of two competing values: the constitutional right to self-defense and the government's interest in public safety. Courts have disagreed on how to balance them. The Justice Department's opinion now signals that the executive branch believes the handgun sales ban tips too far toward restriction. What happens next depends on Congress, which would need to amend or repeal the law to change it formally, and on the Supreme Court, which may eventually be forced to resolve the circuit split and settle the constitutional question once and for all.