11th Cir.

Georgia Second Amendment, Inc. v. Chastain

July 24, 2026 ·2:23-cv-00024-RWS ·Per Curiam · By Aisha Johnson

The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded a district court order that had dismissed a Second Amendment challenge to Georgia's age restrictions on carrying firearms. The appellate court directed the lower court to reconsider the case in light of intervening Supreme Court and circuit court decisions.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:57

Background

Plaintiffs Georgia Second Amendment, Inc. and Thomas Stephens sued Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Probate Judge Michael Chastain, challenging a Georgia law that generally prohibits individuals under the age of twenty-one from carrying firearms in public. The plaintiffs alleged that this prohibition, when applied to individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty, violates the Second Amendment. They sought a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the law. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint, relying on a prior Eleventh Circuit panel decision regarding a similar Florida law. That panel decision was subsequently vacated and reheard en banc by the Eleventh Circuit.

The court’s reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit noted that while the appeal was pending, it issued an en banc decision in National Rifle Association v. Bondi, which applied the Bruen framework to uphold a Florida law prohibiting firearm purchases by individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty. The court found that historical traditions at the Founding era restricted firearm purchases by minors who were considered to lack the reason and judgment necessary to be trusted with legal rights. Additionally, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Wolford v. Lopez, which struck down a Hawaii statute banning concealed carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property without authorization. The district court’s original order did not have the benefit of either the en banc decision or the Supreme Court’s Wolford ruling. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the district court must consider these intervening decisions in the first instance.

What it means going forward

The district court must re-evaluate the preliminary injunction motion and the merits of the complaint using the updated legal standards established by the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc ruling and the Supreme Court’s Wolford decision.