RULING OVERTURNS BAN ON UNDER-21 GUN SALES

Panel: California law limiting buyers of semi-automatic rifles is unconstitutional

A federal appeals court on Wednesday struck down a California law that prohibits people under the age of 21 from buying semi-automatic rifles, calling the ban unconstitutional and a “severe burden” on the Second Amendment rights of young adults.

The law in question was passed in the months following the 2019 shooting at a Poway synagogue, aiming to close a loophole that may have allowed the 19-yearold gunman to buy the weapon used in the deadly attack.

The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partly overturns an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz in San Diego.

“America would not exist without the heroism of the young adults who fought and died in our revolutionary army,” the 55-page majority opinion begins. “Today we reaffirm that our Constitution still protects the right that enabled their sacrifice: the right of young adults to keep and bear arms.”

The initial lawsuit — filed by young adults, gun dealers and advocacy groups — actually challenged a different law, which in 2018 banned 18- to 20-year-olds

from buying any type of long guns — shotguns or rifles — unless they had a valid hunting license or were sworn peace officers or military members.

A Grantville gun shop apparently honored that hunting-license exception to sell an AR-15-type rifle to a 19year-old who used it days later in the synagogue attack — even though the purchase may not actually have been legal, because the license wasn’t yet valid.

In response, the California Legislature months later passed a new law, Senate Bill 61, which took away the hunting-license exception for the purchase of semiautomatic rifles in that age group. The only exception that remained was saved for peace officers or military members.

The plaintiffs reworked their lawsuit, challenging both the hunting-license requirement and the semiautomatic rifle ban. Lorenz, in a 2020 order, declined to issue a preliminary injunction against either law. The plaintiffs appealed.

The 9th Circuit threejudge panel agreed on one thing: Requiring young adults to have a valid hunting license to buy long guns was likely constitutional because it “does not impose a significant burden on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.” The requirement also furthered public safety goals because such licenses provide young adults with gun-safety training, the ruling says.

But the judges split when it came to semi-automatic rifles.

Judge Ryan D. Nelson, a Trump appointee, wrote in the majority ruling that the 2019 law boiled down to an almost complete ban.

“It’s one thing to say that young adults must take a course and purchase a hunting license before obtaining certain firearms. But to say that they must become police officers or join the military? For most young adults, that is no exception at all,” he wrote. Besides, many local law enforcement agencies don’t accept applicants under age 21, the opinion points out in a footnote.

The ruling examines the tradition of allowing youngsters to serve in militias — a tradition deeply rooted in English law and custom and carried over to the U.S. during colonial times.

The majority also found that young adults were at a significant disadvantage when it came to protecting the home for self-defense if they are prohibited from buying the most effective weapons for doing so. Another law already bans people under age 21 from buying handguns — no exceptions — and the semi-automatic rifle ban only adds to that, creating a “severe” burden on their constitutional rights, the ruling states.

Judge Kenneth Lee, another Trump nominee, wrote a separate consenting opinion, putting the semiautomatic rifle law into a broader political context.

“I join the opinion in full but write separately to highlight how California’s legal position has no logical stopping point and would ultimately erode fundamental rights enumerated in our Constitution,” Lee wrote. “Simply put, we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable.”

Judge Sidney Stein, a New York district judge appointed by Clinton, who was temporarily sitting in on the 9th Circuit, wrote the only dissent.

“California’s objective of promoting public safety and reducing gun violence is a significant, important one,” he wrote. “I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the law is not a ‘reasonable fit’ with this objective.”

The Attorney General’s Office, which is defending the law, said Wednesday it is reviewing the decision.

“California will continue to take all necessary steps to prevent and reduce gun violence,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “We remain committed to defending California’s commonsense gun laws, which save lives and make our communities safer.”

The office could ask for the case to be reconsidered by a larger en banc panel of the 9th Circuit, which has happened in other recent Second Amendment cases that have sought to reshape California’s strict gun laws.

The lawyer representing the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment.

Last year, another law was passed to further address how the Poway synagogue shooter was able to buy the rif le with a hunting license that had been issued to him but was not set to go into effect until the official start of the season a few months later.

Beginning July 1, 2025, the law requires the California Department of Justice to verify the validity of a hunting license for those under 21 trying to buy a long gun, as part of the already mandatory 10-day background check. It also mandates gun sellers to visually verify the validity of a hunting license and to document it.

According to the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, roughly 12,000 people ages 18 to 20 bought annual hunting licenses in California last year.