Undergraduate Law Review at Florida State University

Florida’s Post-Parkland Gun Law and the Emerging Federal Divide on Age-Based Regulation

—

by

Undergraduate Law Review at FSU
in

Writer: Reece Tibey

Article Editor: Eleanor Mirgeaux

Associate Editors: Madeline Swaine & Kelsie Fernandez

I. Introduction

    Following the 2018 Parkland high school shooting, then-governor Rick Scott signed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act (SB 7026) into law, which restricts 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing rifles and shotguns.1 This law, otherwise known as a “blanket prohibition” on all 18-to-20-year-olds, is considered one of the strongest gun control measures in modern U.S. history.2 In 2021, the National Rifle Association, a major nonprofit gun-rights advocacy group, filed suit challenging the law, and although courts have upheld it to date, they have done so through fractured decisions. Circuit courts across the country are split on the issue of whether firearm purchases can be restricted due to age; thus, NRA v. Glass3 is currently a candidate for certiorari, or to be heard by the Supreme Court.4 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found in Reese v. ATF5 that federal laws prohibiting 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns were unconstitutional, affirming this age group as part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.6 In contrast, the Eleventh Circuit later upheld Florida’s blanket prohibition, using reasoning that departs from prior Second Amendment precedent on this issue. Given the conflicting approaches adopted by federal courts in assessing whether age alone may justify categorical firearm purchasing bans, Supreme Court review has become necessary to guide Second Amendment jurisprudence.

    II. NRA v. Glass

      Since its passing, SB 7026 has been the target of legal challenges, culminating in a 2025 ruling from the Eleventh Circuit upholding the law’s constitutionality. While the case was originally decided in 2023, it was heard again en banc, or by the full panel of justices, in 2025 following the landmark Supreme Court case N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.7 Bruen introduces a framework through which gun restrictions should be examined, stating that firearm regulations must be consistent with those of the nation’s historical past.8 Justice Thomas stated in the majority opinion that “the government must justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”9

       In the Eleventh Circuit’s Glass ruling, the Court concedes that “minors between 18 and 21 could serve in the militia…” as historical evidence at odds with this age-based blanket prohibition.10 Judge Brasher emphasizes in dissent that under the Militia Act of 1792, all males were required, beginning at age eighteen, to join the militia and provide themselves with a firearm, not merely permitted to do so.11 This distinction provides historical evidence that appears to favor 18-to-20-year-olds having access to guns, even if only under specific circumstances such as military service. Nevertheless, the Glass decision departs from Bruen’s framework, and instead grounds its analysis in founding era contract law, which allowed for contracts signed by 18-to-20-year-olds to be voided under certain circumstances.12 At the time, 18-to-20-year-olds were considered infants, not legal adults.13 Such a line of reasoning appears to be inconsistent with Bruen, which explicitly requires courts to evaluate gun regulations by identifying historical instances that are not only similar in outcome, but are also “relevantly similar,” meaning the reason for regulation must be the same.14 Whereas founding era contract law aimed to prevent minors from financial exploitation, Florida’s SB 7026 aims to prevent legal adults from purchasing firearms. Such a vast difference in regulatory purpose between these two statutes suggests they are not relevantly similar. 

      III. Reese v. ATF

        Prior to the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Glass, the Fifth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion on the same issue, striking down the federal law restricting 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns.15 The Fifth Circuit based much of its ruling on historical evidence of this age group serving in the militia, which included owning firearms, affirming that “overwhelming evidence of their military service at the founding indicates” that they are indeed “part of ‘the people’ for Second Amendment purposes.”16 By explicitly referencing the Militia Act of 1792, which directly concerned 18-to-20-year-olds using firearms, the Fifth Circuit appears to follow the framework provided by Bruen, and concludes that modern laws restricting this same age group’s access to guns are unconstitutional.

        IV. Conclusion

          The Fifth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit analyzed the issue of age-based firearm regulation under different lenses and came to opposite conclusions, reflecting the nationwide split among circuit courts on the constitutionality of such regulations. As referenced in the NRA’s petition for certiorari, the Fifth, Eighth, and Third Circuits are in conflict with the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits on nearly identical issues.17 Given this division among circuit courts and the need for guidance on this issue under the Bruen precedent, the Supreme Court should address the issue of whether age-based restrictions align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. 

          1. Fla. Stat. § 790.065(13) (2025). ↩︎
          2. Cong. Rsch. Serv., LSB10098, Federal Age Restrictions on Firearm Purchases and Possession (updated Aug. 2024), https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10098/LSB10098.4.pdf (on file with the Undergraduate Law Review at FSU). ↩︎
          3. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Glass, No. 21-12314 (11th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025) (en banc). ↩︎
          4. See NRA Takes Fight to Defend the Constitutional Rights of Young Adults to the U.S. Supreme Court, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (May 2025), https://www.nraila.org/articles/20250516/nra-takes-fight-to-defend-the-constitutional-rights-of-young-adults-to-the-us-supreme-court [https://perma.cc/Z7LT-REQD]. ↩︎
          5. Reese v. ATF, No. 23-30033 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2025). ↩︎
          6. Id. at 8. ↩︎
          7. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). ↩︎
          8. Id. ↩︎
          9. Id. at 15. ↩︎
          10. Glass,  No. 21-12314, slip op. at 37. ↩︎
          11. Glass,  No. 21-12314, Brasher, J., dissenting, slip op. at 15. ↩︎
          12. Glass, No. 21-12314, slip op. at 17. ↩︎
          13. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Glass, No. 21-12314, at 3 (U.S. May 16, 2025). ↩︎
          14. Bruen, No. 20-843, slip op. at 29. ↩︎
          15. Reese, No. 23-30033, slip op. at 11. ↩︎
          16. Id. at 19. ↩︎
          17. Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 1–2. ↩︎

          Comments

          Leave a comment