&'

R > : * lcE U.s.DlsT.couKr

ATR- OG :VA
FILED

IN THE U NITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT

22T 2j 2219
FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT 0F V IR GW IA JU . UD , CL
CHA RLOU ESV ILLE DIV ISION BY;
P 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, By:H on.Glen E.Conrad

TOBA ccO,FIREAR M S A r SeniorUnited StatesD istrictJudge
Ex PLO sIvEs,ET AL.,

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

 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)imposesthesamerestrictionsonout-
of-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,

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).

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 asage-

dealersm 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