LAFAYETTE, LA — A federal judge has issued a final judgment in the closely watched case Reese v. ATF, acknowledging that the federal prohibition on handgun sales to adults under 21 violates the Second Amendment—but limiting the practical impact of the decision to a small, narrowly defined group.
On October 7, U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays issued a two-page ruling in compliance with a January 2025 decision from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That earlier ruling found that the federal law barring handgun sales by licensed dealers to adults aged 18 to 20 was unconstitutional.
Judge Summerhays’ final order declared the statute unconstitutional only as applied to three individual plaintiffs—Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, and Emily Naquin—as well as members of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Louisiana Shooting Association (LSA) who were members of those organizations on November 6, 2020 and who reside within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction, which includes Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
The judgment blocks the federal government from enforcing the handgun sales ban against those specific individuals, but only if the buyer is between 18 and 20 years old and is covered by the limited group named in the case.
Further compounding the restrictions, the order directs the organizational plaintiffs to provide the ATF and DOJ with a “verified list” of members from November 2020 within 21 days—an unprecedented mandate that has sparked outrage among gun rights advocates.
Both SAF and FPC quickly criticized the ruling—not because it recognized the law as unconstitutional, but because of how limited and invasive the court’s decision turned out to be.
“This judgment is legally baseless and morally bankrupt,” said the Firearms Policy Coalition in a statement. “Rather than uphold the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court regurgitated the Trump Administration’s self-serving demand to wipe away the Fifth Circuit’s ruling against the government’s unconstitutional ban and continue denying millions of peaceable adults their right to keep and bear arms.”
FPC also reaffirmed that it has never, and will never, provide a list of its members to the government, and is already preparing appellate action to challenge the court’s order.
The Second Amendment Foundation echoed those concerns. “SAF has never—and will never—provide the government a list of our members,” said Executive Director Adam Kraut in a statement. “We are working with our legal team and co-plaintiffs to ensure our members’ identities are protected from this egregious ruling.”
While the court technically recognized the constitutional right of young adults to purchase handguns, the ruling’s narrow scope means the vast majority of 18- to 20-year-olds remain subject to the federal prohibition unless they happened to be members of one of the plaintiff organizations five years ago.
The practical effect, as Kraut described, is 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 a member of SAF at age 13.”
The plaintiffs are expected to return to the Fifth Circuit in pursuit of broader relief that would protect the rights of all peaceable young adults—not just a select few.
This case represents yet another example of federal courts grappling with how to apply the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which reinforced the original understanding of the Second Amendment. While Reese was a step forward in the legal recognition of 18- to 20-year-olds as full participants in Second Amendment rights, Judge Summerhays’ judgment leaves much work to be done to ensure that those rights are not confined to narrow technicalities or historical membership rolls.
As the fight continues, this case underscores the importance of legal membership organizations in preserving and expanding Second Amendment rights through the courts. But it also highlights a significant concern: that constitutional rights should not be dependent on organizational affiliation or geography.
Read full article here