Skip to main content

Firearms and Young Adults

By Gregory Kielma

Featured image for Firearms and Young Adults

Why Are FPC, SAF Having To Battle Trump’s DOJ Over Young Gun Owners’ 2A Rights?

Why Are FPC, SAF Having To Battle Trump’s DOJ Over Young Gun Owners’ 2A Rights?

Mark Chesnut  

Two separate court battles—one in Louisiana and one in Illinois—paint a curious picture of a seemingly divided Trump Administration Department of Justice (DOJ) when it comes to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

As we’ve reported, the DOJ filed a brief and is actually set to testify before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that it believes Illinois ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional and should be overturned. The brief even states: “Illinois violated the Supreme Court’s clear directive that States cannot prohibit arms that are ‘in common use’ by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

Unfortunately, and illogically, two gun rights groups—the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) are having to fight the very same Trump DOJ in a Louisiana case focused on the rights of American gun owners who are 18, 19 and 20 years old. In that case, Reese v. ATF, the DOJ is working hard to avoid an injunction blocking enforcement of the federal ban on sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age.

The DOJ has argued for a narrow proposed judgment that would leave those unconstitutional gun control laws in place for virtually everyone in the United States. And that’s not something the good folks at FPC can live with.

“In the latest brief, FPC and its co-plaintiffs explain that the law requires complete and meaningful relief for all members, not just the few individuals originally named in the lawsuit as proposed by the government,” the organization wrote in a press release on the lawsuit. “To that end, they point out that both the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have long recognized the ability of membership organizations to vindicate the rights of their members, and that this case is no different.”