Delaware Keeps Fighting to Ban Guns for Adults Under 21

Delaware is asking a federal judge to keep Birney v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, the federal challenge to the state’s under-21 gun ban, on hold.

In a July 13 filing, state officials opposed the Birney plaintiffs’ request to reopen proceedings over House Bill 451. That law was written to prohibit most adults ages 18 to 20 from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling firearms and ammunition, subject to limited exceptions.

The immediate question before U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews is procedural: Should the federal case remain frozen while Delaware continues defending HB 451 in state court?

Delaware says it should. The state also argues that Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, the Third Circuit’s major ruling recognizing the Second Amendment rights of adults under 21, does not control the Birney case.

Its reason is the heart of this latest filing. Lara involved public carry, Delaware says, while Birney challenges restrictions on purchasing and possessing firearms.

That is a hard argument to square with reality. A person cannot keep a firearm he is forbidden to possess, and he cannot bear one the government prevents him from acquiring in the first place.

Delaware Wants the Federal Case Kept on Ice

HB 451 was written to prohibit most adults under 21 from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling firearms and ammunition, subject to limited exceptions.

As AmmoLand previously reported, Delaware Superior Court Judge Reneta L. Green-Streett ruled in August 2025 that the age-based restrictions violate Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution. She granted summary judgment to Gavin Birney, the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, and the Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club.

Delaware appealed that loss. The challengers cross-appealed, asking the Delaware Supreme Court to address the federal Second Amendment claim under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework.

Meanwhile, the parallel federal case, Birney v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, has been stayed since 2023. On July 10, the federal plaintiffs asked Judge Andrews for a status conference and requested that the stay be lifted.

Delaware’s response was essentially: keep waiting.

The state wants the federal case held until the Delaware Supreme Court proceedings conclude. It has also requested that the state appeal be sent back for expert reports and an evidentiary hearing concerning Delaware’s concealed-deadly-weapon licensing system.

Delaware argues that adults ages 18 to 20 who obtain a concealed-carry license are exempt from HB 451’s criminal penalties. That exception may narrow the law’s reach, but it does not change the law’s starting point: an entire class of adult citizens is prohibited unless they qualify for a government-approved escape hatch.

An exception to a ban is not the same thing as a right.

Lara Is Binding, Even If Delaware Dislikes Its Reach

The Third Circuit’s published 2025 decision in Lara held that adults ages 18 to 20 are presumptively among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

The court also examined Founding-era militia laws requiring young men to acquire arms and report for service. That history showed that young adults were expected to be armed, not treated as a prohibited class until their 21st birthdays.

AmmoLand covered the Third Circuit victory and its subsequent refusal to rehear the case en banc.

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court denied Pennsylvania’s petition, leaving the Third Circuit judgment intact. That denial did not turn Lara into a nationwide ruling. It did, however, leave Lara as a binding precedent inside the Third Circuit, which includes Delaware.

Lara did not directly decide on a purchase-and-possession ban. The state cannot ignore Lara’s holdings that 18-to-20-year-olds are protected adults and that Founding-era history does not support treating them as a disarmed class.

Delaware’s filing instead points to out-of-circuit decisions upholding other age restrictions, emphasizing that the Supreme Court recently declined to hear appeals from those cases.

A certiorari denial is not a Supreme Court endorsement. It decides only that the justices will not hear that particular appeal. Those out-of-circuit decisions remain persuasive authority in Delaware, while Lara remains binding authority.

You Cannot Keep What You Cannot Acquire

Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros reacted to Delaware’s argument on X, calling the theory that acquiring firearms receives less protection “unserious.”

His point is straightforward. The Second Amendment does not merely prohibit the complete elimination of firearm ownership. It says the right shall not be infringed.

The Tenth Circuit made the same point in Ortega v. Grisham, a case involving New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period:

“One cannot keep or bear arms if one cannot acquire them.”

The court in Ortega rejected the threshold claim that firearm acquisition somehow falls outside the Second Amendment simply because the word “purchase” does not appear in the text.

The right to acquire arms is necessarily connected to keeping and bearing them. Otherwise, a state could destroy the right while pretending it had never technically prohibited “keeping” or “bearing.”

This argument that acquiring firearms is somehow not a right or less protected because the Second Amendment only applies to the literal “keeping” or “bearing” of arms has always been unserious.

Perhaps if the Second Amendment said “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be… https://t.co/JPPyHzQXaD

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) July 13, 2026

Delaware’s Filing Does Not Discuss Reese

Delaware cites decisions from other circuits that upheld age restrictions, but its July 13 filing does not discuss the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Reese v. ATF.

That case is particularly relevant because it involved a federal prohibition on licensed dealers selling handguns to adults under 21. The Fifth Circuit held that the right to keep and bear arms “surely implies the right to purchase them” and found no adequate Founding-era tradition supporting the restriction.

Reese is not binding in Delaware, but neither are the pro-restriction decisions Delaware wants Judge Andrews to consider. It demonstrates that the appellate disagreement is hardly one-sided, and it addresses firearm acquisition far more directly than Lara does.

A Broader Ban Demands More History, Not Less

Delaware’s basic theory turns the breadth of HB 451 into a defense. The state says Lara involved carrying a firearm during an emergency, while HB 451 involves purchasing and possessing one. But HB 451’s broader reach should require a stronger historical justification, not weaker constitutional protection.

Under Bruen, Delaware bears the burden of identifying a historical tradition supporting its restriction. Expert reports can explain that history. They cannot manufacture a Founding-era tradition that did not exist.

Judge Andrews has not yet ruled on whether the federal case will remain stayed. The July 13 filing is Delaware’s request, not a court decision.

Still, the state’s strategy is plain. It wants the federal challenge delayed while asking courts to confine Lara to the narrowest possible box.

Adults do not fall out of “the people” when they step off the sidewalk and into a gun store. If Delaware wants to disarm them, it must justify that policy with Founding-era history, not modern preferences and not a stack of certiorari denials.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.