Affirmation of Expanded Background Checks for 18-20 Year Olds Under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act
Introduction
The case Ethan McRorey; Kaylee Flores; Gun Owners of America, Incorporated; Gun Owners Foundation v. Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 99 F.4th 831 (5th Cir. 2024), addresses the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022. The plaintiffs, comprising individuals and gun rights organizations, challenged the Act's enhanced background check provisions specifically targeting firearm purchases by individuals aged 18 to 20. The core issue revolves around whether the government has sufficiently demonstrated a historical basis for these expanded checks, as mandated by recent Supreme Court precedents.
Summary of the Judgment
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs. The court held that the expanded background check requirements for 18-20-year-olds under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act are presumptively lawful. The plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, particularly in demonstrating that the government did not provide an adequate historical analogue for the regulated conduct. Consequently, the court maintained that the existing firearm regulations align with the nation's historical tradition of gun control, thereby upholding the expanded background checks.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
The judgment heavily references two pivotal Supreme Court cases:
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
- United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023)
Additionally, the court considers District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which underscores the constitutionality of background checks as "presumptively lawful" under the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit integrates these precedents to determine the scope and application of the Bruen decision, particularly in distinguishing between regulations that are "presumptively lawful" and those requiring a historical basis.
Legal Reasoning
The court's legal reasoning centers on interpreting the Second Amendment in light of the Bruen and Heller decisions. The court acknowledges that while the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to "keep and bear arms," this right is not absolute and can be subject to regulations that align with historical traditions.
Specifically, the court differentiates between regulations that directly impact the right to bear arms, such as "sensitive place" restrictions, and those like background checks, which are deemed "presumptively lawful" unless proven to be abusive or lacking historical foundation. The expanded background checks for 18-20-year-olds, as outlined in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, were examined to ensure they fit within the established regulatory framework without overstepping constitutional bounds.
The plaintiffs attempted to argue that the Act required a "broad and enduring historical tradition," but the court found their interpretation of Bruen to be an out-of-context application. Instead, the court emphasized that existing background check systems, particularly those administered by the FBI's NICS, have historical precedence and are consistent with the nation's firearm regulation tradition.
Impact
This judgment reinforces the legality of expanded background checks for young adults, potentially setting a precedent for future firearm regulations targeting specific age groups or other demographics. By affirming that such regulations are presumptively lawful, the court provides a clear framework for evaluating similar laws, emphasizing the necessity of historical analogues but also recognizing the legitimacy of modern regulatory measures that align with historical practices.
Additionally, the decision underscores the judiciary's role in balancing Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns. It signals to lawmakers and stakeholders that while gun rights are constitutionally protected, they are not without reasonable restrictions based on historical precedent and the government's interest in preventing firearm-related harm.
Complex Concepts Simplified
- Second Amendment: Part of the U.S. Constitution that protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
- Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022: Federal legislation aimed at enhancing gun control measures, including expanded background checks.
- Preliminary Injunction: A temporary court order that halts actions until a full hearing can be conducted.
- Presumptively Lawful: Assumed to be legal unless proven otherwise.
- Historical Analogue: A comparable practice or regulation from history used to justify current laws.
- Bruen-Rahimi Interregnum: The period following the Supreme Court's decisions in Bruen and Rahimi, where lower courts interpret and apply these rulings to new cases.
- NICS: National Instant Criminal Background Check System, administered by the FBI, used to conduct background checks on firearm purchasers.
Conclusion
The Fifth Circuit's affirmation in McRorey v. Garland solidifies the constitutional standing of expanded background checks for individuals aged 18 to 20 under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. By meticulously applying Supreme Court precedents and emphasizing the importance of historical analogues in firearm regulation, the court has upheld the government's authority to implement measures deemed necessary for public safety without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights. This decision not only reinforces existing regulatory frameworks but also paves the way for future legislation aimed at balancing individual rights with societal needs.
Comments