Florida Court Strikes Down Concealed Carry Age Restriction for 18- to 20-Year-Olds

Florida's firearm laws have undergone significant constitutional scrutiny in recent years. A new Florida appellate decision has now addressed another major question: whether the State can prevent otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from exercising the same concealed-carry rights available to adults who are 21 and older.

In Eubanks v. State, Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that the state's statutory restriction on concealed carry for adults under 21 violates the Second Amendment. The court held that section 790.06(2)(b), Florida Statutes, is facially unconstitutional as applied to people between the ages of 18 and 20.

The decision represents another significant development in Florida firearm law following recent court decisions applying the United States Supreme Court's modern Second Amendment framework.

What Happened in Eubanks v. State?

The defendant in Eubanks was prosecuted for carrying a concealed firearm. At the time, Florida law prevented him from obtaining the concealed carry authorization available to adults 21 and older because he was between the ages of 18 and 20.

That distinction became central to the constitutional challenge.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal recognized that the defendant had no lawful means of publicly carrying his firearm at the time of his arrest. Because of his age, he could not qualify for concealed carry, while Florida's prohibition against openly carrying firearms also potentially subjected him to prosecution.

The Florida Attorney General ultimately conceded that the defendant's concealed-firearm conviction should be vacated.

But the Fourth DCA went further.

Rather than resolving only the defendant's individual case, the court considered whether Florida could constitutionally deny concealed-carry rights to all otherwise law-abiding adults between 18 and 20 solely because of their age.

The court concluded that it could not.

The Second Amendment Test After Bruen

A major part of the court's analysis came from the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Under Bruen, courts considering a Second Amendment challenge generally ask two questions.

First, does the plain text of the Second Amendment cover the person's conduct?

If it does, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

The burden then shifts to the government to establish that the firearm restriction is consistent with the country's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The government cannot justify a restriction merely by arguing that the law advances an important public interest.

That historical analysis proved critical in Eubanks.

Are 18- to 20-Year-Olds Protected by the Second Amendment?

The Fourth DCA answered this question yes.

The court determined that adults between 18 and 20 are among "the people" protected by the Second Amendment.

The opinion relied not only on Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller, but also on federal appellate decisions addressing firearm restrictions imposed on younger adults.

For example, the Eighth Circuit in Worth v. Jacobson struck down a Minnesota restriction on public handgun carry by 18-to-20-year-olds. Similarly, the Third Circuit in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police concluded that 18-to-20-year-olds fall within the people protected by the Second Amendment.

The Eubanks court followed the same reasoning.

Florida itself generally recognizes 18 as the age of majority. Section 743.07, Florida Statutes, provides that people 18 and older enjoy the rights, privileges, and obligations generally associated with adulthood.

The Fourth DCA therefore concluded that the Second Amendment's protection of "the people" includes otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20.

What Did History Show About Young Adults Carrying Firearms?

Once the court determined that the Second Amendment covered the conduct at issue, Florida's restriction had to satisfy the historical analysis required by Bruen.

The court concluded that the necessary historical tradition did not exist.

One particularly important piece of history involved militia service.

The court discussed the Second Militia Act of 1792, which required able-bodied men to enroll in the militia and arm themselves beginning at age 18. The Fourth DCA relied on federal appellate authority finding that this provided evidence that founding-era lawmakers understood young adults as people who could—and sometimes were affirmatively required to—keep and bear arms.

The court found no comparable founding-era tradition categorically prohibiting 18-to-20-year-old adults from publicly carrying firearms.

That distinction mattered.

The Supreme Court has recognized longstanding firearm restrictions involving certain categories of people and circumstances, including possession by felons and the mentally ill and carrying firearms in sensitive places.

But the Fourth DCA found no historical analogue placing otherwise law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds into a similarly prohibited category merely because of their age.

What About Claims That Younger Adults Are More Dangerous?

The court also rejected arguments attempting to justify the restriction based upon the alleged disproportionate misuse of firearms by people between 18 and 20.

Under Bruen, the question is not simply whether the government can identify a persuasive policy reason for a firearm restriction.

Instead, the government must demonstrate that the restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The court also relied on the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi. While Rahimi upheld a firearm restriction involving a person found to pose a credible threat to another person's physical safety, the Supreme Court rejected the broader proposition that someone may be disarmed simply because the government considers that person "irresponsible."

The Fourth DCA applied similar reasoning to younger adults.

Being between 18 and 20, standing alone, does not establish that an individual poses a threat of violence or otherwise falls within a historically recognized category of people who may be prohibited from exercising Second Amendment rights.

How Is Eubanks Different From Florida's Restriction on Buying a Firearm Under 21?

This is an important distinction.

The Eubanks decision concerned the right to carry a firearm, not necessarily every law regulating the purchase or sale of firearms to adults under 21.

The court specifically discussed National Rifle Association v. Bondi, in which the Eleventh Circuit upheld Florida restrictions affecting firearm purchases by 18-to-20-year-olds.

The Fourth DCA distinguished that decision.

According to the Eubanks court, historical restrictions involving younger people's ability to purchase firearms were connected to their historical legal capacity to enter contracts. That is a different question from whether an adult possesses a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The court therefore did not treat restrictions on purchasing firearms as establishing a historical tradition allowing Florida to categorically prohibit 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying them.

What Did the Court Ultimately Decide?

The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that section 790.06(2)(b), Florida Statutes, is facially unconstitutional as applied to people between the ages of 18 and 20.

The court summarized its reasoning by concluding that everyone who reaches the age of majority possesses the same rights to public carry, including concealed carry.

The court therefore vacated Eubanks's conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and reversed and remanded the case.

The decision represents a significant development in the continuing evolution of Florida firearm law following Heller, Bruen, Rahimi, and the recent Florida decision in McDaniels.

Does Eubanks Mean Anyone 18 or Older Can Carry a Concealed Firearm in Florida?

No. The decision should not be interpreted as eliminating Florida's other restrictions on firearm possession or carry.

Eubanks specifically addressed the constitutionality of denying concealed-carry rights to otherwise protected adults solely because they are between 18 and 20 years old.

Other state and federal firearm restrictions may still apply depending on a person's circumstances, criminal history, location, manner of carrying the firearm, or other factors.

Florida firearm law has also been changing rapidly as courts continue applying the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decisions. Anyone facing a criminal charge involving carrying or possessing a firearm should therefore consider the specific law and appellate precedent applicable to the case rather than assuming that Eubanks automatically makes the conduct lawful.

Charged With a Firearm Offense in Tampa?

Florida's firearm laws can carry serious criminal consequences, and recent constitutional decisions have made this area of law increasingly complex.

If you have been arrested or charged with carrying a concealed firearm, felon in possession of a firearm, improper exhibition of a firearm, or another firearm-related offense in Tampa or Hillsborough County, an experienced criminal defense attorney can evaluate whether the State can prove the charge and whether recent Second Amendment decisions affect your case.

At Hunt Law, Tampa criminal defense attorney J. Ruffin Hunt personally represents clients facing misdemeanor and felony firearm charges throughout Hillsborough County. As a former Division Chief at the Hillsborough County Public Defender's Office, Mr. Hunt has defended thousands of criminal cases in Tampa courts.

Contact Hunt Law for a free, confidential case consultation to discuss your charges and potential defenses.