Court Upholds Colorado Law Banning Gun Sales To 18-20-Year-Olds, Sparks 2nd Amendment Concerns

In a controversial ruling, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Colorado’s ban on gun sales to individuals under 21, reversing a previous court decision that had blocked the law. The decision, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Federico, argues that Colorado’s law does not infringe on the Second Amendment because it merely places a condition on commercial firearm sales.

The ruling has divided opinions on gun rights, with supporters of the law arguing it will increase public safety. The state claims that the restriction, established through Senate Bill 23-169, aims to reduce firearm incidents involving young adults, citing research that suggests impulse control is still developing in people under 21. Advocates say the law is consistent with historical gun regulations, which often included restrictions based on age.

Federico pointed to the Supreme Court’s guidance in Bruen, which requires that modern gun laws must align with the historical context of firearm regulations. The court found that Colorado’s law met this requirement and was therefore “presumptively lawful,” as it does not strip away the fundamental right to bear arms.

Opponents, however, argue that this ruling contradicts the Second Amendment’s clear language. Groups like Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) contend that age should not determine constitutional rights. RMGO’s stance is that the Second Amendment’s protection to “keep and bear arms” should extend to all adult citizens, including those aged 18 to 20, and that this age-based restriction unfairly discriminates against young adults.

Gun rights advocates point out the inconsistency in allowing 18-year-olds to vote, serve in the military, and pay taxes while denying them the right to purchase firearms. They argue that this selective limitation is unconstitutional and sidesteps the Supreme Court’s recent rulings that call for firearm regulations to follow historical precedents.

RMGO has stated its intention to appeal the decision, potentially bringing it to the Supreme Court. If taken up, this case could set an important precedent on age-based restrictions and Second Amendment rights, raising questions about the balance between public safety and individual freedoms.