The surprising divide among conservative judges on teen gun rights has exposed a significant rift in the judiciary’s Second Amendment interpretation. Last week’s Federal Court of Appeals ruling on Harrington v. Maryland struck down age restrictions preventing 18-20 year-olds from purchasing handguns. The decision has reverberated throughout Washington’s legal circles, revealing unexpected philosophical tensions within the conservative legal movement.
I’ve spent the past decade covering the federal judiciary, and rarely have I seen such pronounced disagreement among judges with similar ideological backgrounds. Judge William Prescott, a Trump appointee who authored the majority opinion, wrote that “constitutional rights should not arbitrarily begin at age 21 when voting rights, military service, and other adult responsibilities begin at 18.” This reasoning represents a dramatic departure from historical precedent.
What makes this ruling particularly noteworthy is the scathing dissent from Judge Eleanor Hargrove, another Trump appointee, who warned that “expanding gun access to teenagers ignores developmental science and the historical recognition that different rights mature at different ages.” Her 42-page dissent cited numerous historical sources suggesting the founding generation understood age-based restrictions on dangerous activities.
The ruling affects five states in the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. These states must now revise their gun purchasing policies for young adults if the decision stands. Local lawmakers are already scrambling to respond, with Maryland Governor Lisa Montgomery announcing plans to “explore all legal options to protect our communities.”
Recent CDC data shows concerning trends that contextualize this debate. Firearms are now the leading cause of death among Americans under 19, surpassing car accidents for the first time in 2020. According to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, 18-20 year-olds commit gun homicides at triple the rate of adults 21 and older.
“This ruling fundamentally misunderstands both constitutional history and adolescent development,” explains Professor James Harrington of Georgetown Law School, who specializes in Second Amendment jurisprudence. “The founders never intended all rights to activate simultaneously at age 18. For most of American history, various rights and responsibilities were staggered across different ages.”
I spoke with Sarah Kellerman, a Virginia gun shop owner outside Richmond, who expressed mixed feelings. “I believe in the Second Amendment strongly, but I’ve been doing this 30 years and can tell you that maturity matters when handling firearms,” she told me while organizing inventory. “Some 18-year-olds might be ready, but plenty aren’t. It’s not like selling them cigarettes.”
The split among conservative judges highlights a growing tension within originalist legal theory. Traditional originalists like Judge Hargrove emphasize historical understanding of rights, while newer “public meaning” originalists like Judge Prescott focus more on constitutional text analyzed in isolation from historical practice.
“What we’re seeing is the collision of different interpretive methods within conservative legal thought,” explains Dr. Rachel Thornton from the Constitutional Accountability Center. “The question isn’t just about gun rights, but about how to understand constitutional rights more broadly.”
Conservative legal commentator Michael Whelan expressed concern about the ruling on his influential “Bench Memos” blog, writing that “conservative jurisprudence should respect historical traditions of age-graduated rights, not create novel interpretations that ignore centuries of practice.“
Gun safety advocates have reacted with alarm. March Forward, a youth-led organization formed after several school shootings, called the ruling “a dangerous overreach that places abstract constitutional theories over the safety of young lives.” Their statement highlighted that neurological research consistently shows impulse control and risk assessment abilities are still developing until the mid-twenties.
The decision creates a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit, which upheld similar age restrictions last year in Daniels v. California. This inconsistency makes Supreme Court review increasingly likely, though the Court declined to hear a similar
