Gun Owners of America and several other organizations filed an amicus brief on June 20, 2025. The filing with the U.S. Supreme Court supports challenging Florida’s under-21 firearm prohibitions.
The case, NRA v. Glass, is the National Rifle Association’s challenge to a Florida law that prohibits those between the ages of 18 and 20 from purchasing a firearm. On May 16, 2025, the NRA petitioned the United States Supreme Court, seeking certiorari. Gun Owners of America and a cadre of other organizations filed an amicus brief in support of the NRA’s request.
“A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm,” the brief says the law states. The law restricts licensed dealers from making such transactions, even where contradictory to federal law. GOA noted that the 11th Circuit erred in their decision to uphold the ban and observed that: “It was not until the Reconstruction era that the Eleventh Circuit could find express restrictions on the sale of weapons to those under 21.”
Using the Bruen methodology and trying to draw an analogue from the time of our founding, we’re directed to 1791. While some will debate that the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment is the appropriate analogue timeline, that view is flawed–and has been proven to be flawed time and time again.
In the High Court’s opinion in Rahimi, some of this was explored:
By that same logic, the Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791. Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers.
Regardless of what a so-called “analogue” would be, the court held that 1791 is the appropriate time. This can’t be discredited as dicta. It’s in the spirit of what Thomas wrote in the Bruen syllabus when he discussed the commission of “common-law offenses of ‘affray’ or going armed ‘to the terror of the people.’” That analogue is circa 1328, 463 years prior to the founding–not 1865.
“The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals previously upheld the Florida statute, which criminalizes firearm purchases by adults under 21—even though they are legal adults under both federal and state law, eligible to vote, serve in the military, and fully bound by the law,” GOA said in a release. “GOA’s brief argues that the Eleventh’s Circuit’s ruling is flatly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision and relies on irrelevant historical analogies that the Court has already rejected.”
In GOA’s brief, they argue that the court should grant cert for a number of reasons.
One reason mentioned was to have the court settle that activities surrounding the Second Amendment, such as the procurement of arms, would have Second Amendment protections too.
They further state that the High Court needs to settle that governmental bodies placing restrictions on the right must come up with analogues of actual regulations from the time of the founding. GOA argues that the government can’t use “a historical hodgepodge of vague principles and assumptions entirely untethered to the firearm prohibition” they seek to inflict.
“The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in this case is a direct threat to the Second Amendment rights of millions of young adults,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said. “If allowed to stand, it will invite every anti-gun legislature in the country to attack enumerated freedoms under the guise of ‘public safety.’ The Constitution doesn’t have an age limit, and the Court’s own Bruen decision makes clear that states can’t invent modern bans out of thin air. The Supreme Court needs to intervene.”
“CNJFO, as always, is pleased to join forces with other state and national groups, to support legal action filed by the NRA,” said Theresa Inacker, one of the trustees of the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, when asked about the brief.
Also on Friday June 20, two other amicus briefs in support of the NRA were filed independently by the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
SAF’s brief goes after the 11th Circuit’s reliance “on the voidability rule as historical evidence.” They state that’s a nullified argument because firearms were “necessaries” at the time of the founding.
NSSF’s brief points out that there’s a “circuit split over whether young adults who are entrusted with using firearms in service of defending their country may nonetheless be prohibited from keeping and bearing arms for self-defense.” The Foundation points out the contradiction that many have drawn in prior arguments on the topic.
Defendant Mark Glass, commissioner of Florida Department of Law Enforcement, requested an extension to filing his reply to the NRA’s cert petition. Glass’ reply brief is due July 21. NRA v. Glass is a very important and interesting case dealing with the 18-20 age group of “lost adults.” We’ll be watching the progression of this, and other under-21-related cases as they progress through the judicial system.
The status of NRA v. Glass can be monitored HERE.
Joining GOA in this filing are:
Gun Owners Fdn., Gun Owners of CA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Coalition of NJ Firearm Owners, Grass Roots NC, TN Firearms Association, TN Firearms Fdn., VA Citizens Defense League, VA Citizens Defense Fdn., Rights Watch Int’l, America’s Future, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Read the full article here
