Virginia Students Sue Over Under-21 Gun Purchase Ban and Private-Sale Restrictions
Two law-abiding Virginia college students want to buy handguns for their own protection. They have identified the firearms, agreed on prices, and found a willing private seller. Virginia law stands between them and those purchases.
Now they are taking the Commonwealth back to court, arguing that adults do not have to wait until their 21st birthday to become part of “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected.
In Boyer v. Katz, filed October 6 in the Circuit Court for the City of Lynchburg, Melody Boyer and Natasha Rousseau challenge Virginia’s under-21 prohibition on purchasing handguns and firearms the state labels “assault firearms.” They also challenge the mandatory background-check requirement for private firearm sales.
Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation join them as plaintiffs. The defendant is Virginia State Police Superintendent Jeffrey Katz, sued in his official capacity.
Two Adults, Two Blocked Handgun Purchases
Boyer, 19, is a Liberty University student who wants to buy a Glock 19 from Lynchburg resident Ryan Thomas for $650. Rousseau, 18, also attends Liberty and wants to purchase a Smith & Wesson Shield from Thomas for $300.
Both also want to purchase AR-15-style rifles from him for $900 each. According to their declarations, Thomas has agreed to the transactions, and they would complete the purchases immediately if legally able.
The women describe themselves as law-abiding adults with no criminal records or other general firearm disqualifications. They want the firearms for personal protection and other lawful purposes.
Their situation puts a human face on an age restriction: Virginia recognizes their adulthood while denying them the ability to purchase ordinary firearms for their own defense.
Virginia Doubled Down After Earlier Court Rulings
The complaint places the new lawsuit within an existing fight over Virginia’s private-sale background-check law, § 18.2-308.2:5.
According to the filing, earlier Lynchburg decisions recognized the right of adults ages 18–20 to purchase handguns. The background-check requirement nevertheless blocked those private purchases because routing them through federally licensed dealers brought the federal under-21 handgun-sales restriction into play.
The complaint recounts a December 2024 ruling permanently enjoining the background-check law as applied to adults ages 18–20, followed by a 2025 decision striking the statute in its entirety through a severability analysis.
Then came HB1525, which Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed April 22, 2026.
The legislation, included as an exhibit, directed State Police to enforce the private-sale background-check statute. It also added § 18.2-308.7(C), expressly prohibiting anyone younger than 21 from knowingly and intentionally purchasing a handgun or “assault firearm” anywhere in Virginia.
The plaintiffs argue lawmakers revived a restriction the court had already rejected and compounded the constitutional injury with an explicit purchase ban. Violations of the challenged statutes are Class 1 misdemeanors.
Adults Ages 18–20 Are Part of “The People”
The students’ position has substantial judicial support. AmmoLand has extensively covered courts rejecting attempts to exclude lawful young adults from the Second Amendment.
In Reese v. ATF, the Fifth Circuit held in January 2025 that the federal restriction on licensed-dealer handgun sales to adults ages 18–20 violates the Second Amendment. The court recognized both their inclusion among “the people” and the right to purchase arms necessary to exercise the right to keep and bear them.
In Worth v. Jacobson, the Eighth Circuit struck Minnesota’s carry-permit age restriction for otherwise qualified adults ages 18–20. Minnesota failed to establish a historical tradition justifying that exclusion. AmmoLand reported when the Supreme Court declined to review that victory in April 2025.
The Third Circuit likewise reaffirmed in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police that adults ages 18–20 are among “the people,” rejecting Pennsylvania’s effective prohibition on their public carry during emergencies. AmmoLand covered the subsequent denial of rehearing.
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion in Eubanks v. State, rejecting the concealed-carry age restriction for lawful adults ages 18–20. AmmoLand reported that the Florida attorney general would not appeal.
These decisions concern different laws, but their central principle is directly relevant: the government cannot simply write lawful young adults out of the constitutional text. Founding-era militia obligations expected young Americans to acquire and possess arms. That history supports their rights; it does not supply a tradition of categorical disarmament.
A Virginia Constitutional Challenge With Broader Stakes
Boyer proceeds exclusively under Article I, Section 13 of Virginia’s Constitution. The plaintiffs invoke federal Second Amendment decisions to inform that state constitutional claim, rather than bringing a separate federal claim.
They argue the right to keep and bear arms necessarily protects acquiring firearms, and that neither the age-based purchase prohibition nor mandatory checks for private, noncommercial, intrastate sales has the required historical support.
The private-sale challenge reaches beyond young adults. The plaintiffs seek to invalidate that requirement for adult Virginians generally, protecting private transactions without compulsory dealer involvement and government background checks.
The complaint expressly distinguishes this case from litigation over Virginia’s general “assault firearm” bans. Here, the age-related question is whether adults ages 18–20 receive the same constitutional protection as older adults.
The plaintiffs seek declarations that both challenged statutes are unconstitutional and temporary and permanent injunctions against enforcement. GOF’s case page lists an October 6 motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The provided materials contain no order granting that relief in Boyer.
Virginia’s constitutional guarantee is a restraint on lawmakers, not a privilege they may postpone until a citizen turns 21. Boyer and Rousseau are adults seeking the means to defend themselves. Multiple courts have already rejected age restrictions that deny lawful adults their gun rights. Virginia must now answer for imposing another—and for again forcing gun owners into court to defend private firearm purchases.
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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.