Delaware’s prohibition on firearm sales and possession for young adults aged 18-20 is currently at the center of critical legal battles, testing the scope of Second Amendment protections and specifically whether the right to acquire arms is implicitly guaranteed. These cases highlight a national debate over age-based restrictions and their constitutionality, with implications for young adults across the country.
The Delaware Battleground: State and Federal Fronts
The state of Delaware is defending a law, House Bill 451, that bans most individuals aged 18 to 20 from purchasing and possessing firearms classified as "deadly weapons." This legislative action has ignited two significant legal challenges: one in federal court and another navigating the state judicial system. These parallel lawsuits underscore the complex nature of Second Amendment litigation and the varying interpretations across different legal jurisdictions.
The state-level case has progressed significantly, with the Delaware Supreme Court agreeing in April to hear the lawsuit. This follows a Superior Court judge’s ruling that the law infringes upon Article 1, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution, which protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state. Oral arguments before the state’s highest court concluded last month, and the firearms community now awaits a definitive opinion.
Meanwhile, the federal challenge has been under a judicial stay, pausing proceedings while the state case unfolds. However, plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit are now petitioning the federal judge to lift this stay, citing a recent development from the U.S. Supreme Court. This strategic move aims to leverage a favorable appellate court ruling from a separate case to advance their claims in Delaware.
The 'Right to Acquire' and Conflicting Rulings
A central tenet of the ongoing legal arguments revolves around whether the Second Amendment’s explicit protection of the right to "keep and bear arms" implicitly guarantees the right to acquire them. Delaware’s defense hinges on a distinction, suggesting that restrictions on purchase and possession are different from restrictions on carrying, and thus subject to different legal scrutiny under the framework established by Bruen.
The plaintiffs in the federal case point to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari in Lara v. Comm’r Penn. State Police. In that case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals—which holds jurisdiction over Delaware—ruled that Pennsylvania’s age-based restrictions on the public carry of firearms for young adults violated their Second Amendment rights. By denying cert, the Supreme Court allowed the Third Circuit’s decision in Lara to stand, making it binding precedent within that circuit.
Delaware, however, argues that while SCOTUS denied cert in Lara, it also denied cert in several other out-of-circuit cases where lower courts had upheld federal or state laws banning the sale of some firearms to adults under 21. The state contends that these other denials, particularly cases like McCoy (consolidated with Brown at the Fourth Circuit, which upheld a federal regulation prohibiting handgun sales to under-21s), are more analogous to Delaware’s law concerning purchase and possession, rather than Lara‘s focus on public carry.
This creates a complex legal landscape, as the Third Circuit’s interpretation in Lara—that the Second Amendment presumptively encompasses all adult Americans, including 18-to-20-year-olds, and that no founding-era law supports disarming this group—directly impacts Delaware. The state’s attempt to differentiate between the "conduct" of carrying versus purchasing/possessing highlights a critical aspect of Second Amendment jurisprudence post-Bruen: the historical tradition of firearm regulation. The underlying issue is whether the right to acquire firearms is a fundamental component of the right to keep and bear them, an argument that many Second Amendment advocates consider self-evident.
The Supreme Court’s Silence and Circuit Splits
The Supreme Court’s decision to deny cert in multiple age-restriction cases, including Lara, has left a significant circuit split unaddressed. While the Third Circuit has sided with young adults’ rights to bear arms, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has also previously ruled that bans on handgun sales to 18-to-20-year-olds violate the Second Amendment. This contrasts with other circuits that have upheld such restrictions, creating an uneven application of Second Amendment rights across the nation.
The fact that the justices held onto these cert petitions for months before issuing their denials suggests an active and perhaps unresolved debate within the Court regarding the issue of age-based gun ownership restrictions. By allowing the issue to "percolate" further in lower courts, the Supreme Court may be signaling a desire for more robust legal arguments and a clearer picture of the landscape before rendering a definitive national ruling. For serious shooters, understanding the enduring relevance of the Second Amendment and its evolving interpretation is crucial.
Regardless of the Supreme Court’s current stance, the legal community generally agrees that the right to acquire a firearm is intrinsically linked to the right to keep and bear one. As the Tenth Circuit noted in Ortega v. Grisham (2025), quoting In re Mallo (2014):
"New Mexico points to dictionary definitions of "keep" and "bear" that do not include acquisition. But dictionary definitions of those terms, in isolation, cannot denote the preexisting right’s bounds that the text sought to concretize. In re Mallo, 774 F.3d 1313, 1321 (10th Cir. 2014). The Second Amendment’s text is not limited to direct prohibitions on possessing or using firearms. It states that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. CONST. amend. II. (emphasis added). One cannot keep or bear arms if one cannot acquire them. That is an infringement, even if it is not a direct prohibition or ban. Accord United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 812, 120 S. Ct. 1878, 146 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2000) (Even if a law "does not impose a complete prohibition," "laws burdening and laws banning speech . . . must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny.")." – bearingarms.com
This perspective emphasizes that any restriction on acquisition inherently infringes upon the broader right to self-defense. The Birney challenge in federal court, overseen by an Obama-appointed judge, may still await the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion, but the implications of the Third Circuit’s Lara decision remain significant for the federal case.
Looking Ahead: Implications for Second Amendment Rights
The outcome of these Delaware cases, both at the state and federal levels, carries substantial weight for the future of Second Amendment rights, particularly for young adults. Should the Delaware Supreme Court uphold the Superior Court’s ruling, it would affirm robust state constitutional protections for firearms ownership. Conversely, a reversal would place greater emphasis on the federal courts to resolve the ongoing debate.
The federal challenge, if the stay is lifted, could potentially force a direct confrontation with the Third Circuit’s precedent set in Lara. This could lead to further appeals and perhaps, eventually, compel the U.S. Supreme Court to definitively address the constitutionality of age-based firearm restrictions nationwide. For serious shooters, these cases are not merely abstract legal arguments; they represent direct impacts on the ability of responsible young adults to exercise fundamental rights and participate in shooting sports, hunting, and self-defense. Readers should always confirm current firearm laws in their specific jurisdiction, as legal interpretations can vary and evolve.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core issue in Delaware’s gun law challenge?
The core issue is whether Delaware’s law banning firearm purchases and possession for 18-20 year olds violates the Second Amendment and the state’s constitution, particularly concerning the implicit right to acquire firearms.
Why is the Lara case relevant to Delaware’s situation?
The Lara case, decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Delaware), ruled that age-based restrictions on public carry for young adults violate the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs in Delaware are using this precedent to challenge their state’s law.
Has the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on age-based gun restrictions?
The U.S. Supreme Court has not issued a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of age-based gun restrictions, having denied certiorari in several related cases, including Lara, which has left conflicting lower court decisions in place.
What is the difference between "keeping and bearing" and "acquiring" arms in legal arguments?
Delaware argues that "keeping and bearing" arms, as stated in the Second Amendment, does not explicitly include the "acquisition" of firearms, suggesting a lesser standard of review for sales restrictions. Opponents contend that acquisition is a necessary precursor to keeping and bearing arms, and thus protected.
What is a "circuit split" and why does it matter here?
A circuit split occurs when different U.S. Courts of Appeals issue conflicting rulings on the same legal question. In this context, some circuits have upheld age-based gun restrictions while others have struck them down, creating an inconsistent application of Second Amendment rights across the nation and often prompting Supreme Court review.