Delaware Supreme Court hears arguments over constitutionality of age-restricted gun law

From Philly and the Pa. suburbs to South Jersey and Delaware, what would you like WHYY News to cover? Let us know!

The Delaware Supreme Court could revive a 2022 law that required residents to be at least 21 years of age to purchase a firearm.

The Delaware Department of Justice appealed a September 2025 state Superior Court ruling that struck down the law as unconstitutional, siding with the gun rights supporters.

The state’s highest court heard arguments Wednesday from the Delaware DOJ, the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, the state’s National Rifle Association affiliate and the Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club.

The law, House Bill 451, outlawed 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing or possessing firearms, with the exception of shotguns and muzzle-loading weapons. However, it exempted people in that age group who obtained a conceal carry license.

DOJ attorney Kate Aaronson argued that the justices should reverse the lower court’s decision because it failed to give the General Assembly the required deference under the standard it used to reach its decision.

“This court has repeatedly recognized that the legislature is far better equipped to make policy judgments, within constitutional balance, about the threat that firearms actually pose to the safety of the public and how best to combat those risks,” she said.

Delaware is arguing that setting minimum age limits for owning handguns makes the public safer, in part because of research showing the brain isn’t fully developed until age 25, and that young adults under 21 are more likely to misuse firearms.

Aaronson said there are exceptions in the law showing it does not deny Second Amendment rights to members of the 18-to-20 age group, including allowing them to possess certain firearms other than handguns, allowing those under 21 years old to use a handgun in self-defense, and frees them from the law’s requirements should they have a concealed carry license.

Opposing attorney Francis Pileggi pushed back on Aaronson’s arguments, saying the law was unconstitutional because it denies a fundamental right enshrined in the Delaware Constitution to an entire class of law-abiding citizens.

The plaintiffs criticized state defendants and gun control supporters in their court filings, referencing mass shootings conducted by people 20 years old and younger, calling them “scare tactics.”

Pileggi also took issue with the assertion that exceptions in the law made it constitutionally valid.

“The exceptions don’t salvage it,” he told the court. “The exceptions don’t cleanse the sins of the restrictions, because there is no other fundamental, natural right recognized by this court or the U.S. Supreme Court for which you need to apply for a governmental permit.”

The plaintiffs, while applauding the Delaware Superior Court’s 2025 decision, took issue with the standard the court used to issue its decision. Pileggi asked the state Supreme Court to use the test developed in a 2022 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded Second Amendment rights.

Pileggi argued the right test was to analyze the text of the Second Amendment and the nation’s history of firearm regulation. He said the standard the Superior Court used, intermediate scrutiny, is too deferential to the government.

Aaronson told the justices during her rebuttal that even under the opposing parties’ preferred text and historical tradition standard, the law would still be constitutional.