The Trump administration has admitted that the federal government cannot constitutionally prohibit licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20. Yet the Department of Justice is still fighting in federal court to prevent gun-rights organizations from securing lasting judicial protection against the very same unconstitutional law.
On November 4, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a reply brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in FPC v. ATF, formerly Reese v. ATF. The filing challenges DOJ’s attempt to avoid further judicial relief nearly six years after FPC, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Louisiana Shooting Association first challenged the federal handgun purchase restrictions.
The plaintiffs have already won the constitutional argument. Now they are fighting to ensure that victory actually protects the people whose rights were violated.
DOJ Admits the Federal Handgun Ban Violates the Second Amendment
In January 2025, the Fifth Circuit ruled that federal restrictions prohibiting federally licensed dealers from selling handguns and handgun ammunition to adults ages 18 to 20 violated the Second Amendment. The decision represented a significant victory for young Americans who enjoy the same constitutional rights as other adults but have been denied access to the ordinary commercial handgun market.
On September 17, 2026, the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion agreeing that the restrictions were unconstitutional. The DOJ acknowledged that these adults are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment and that the government could not justify the prohibition under the Supreme Court’s historical-tradition standard.
But rather than agree to the broader judicial relief sought by the organizations that successfully challenged the law, the Justice Department now argues that its change in legal position makes the remaining lawsuit moot. Essentially, DOJ maintains that because the administration no longer considers the restrictions enforceable, a broader court order is unnecessary.
