On October 24, 2025, a significant ruling emerged from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, in the case of State of Florida v. Joel Walkes. Judge Frank Ledee granted defendant Joel Walkes’ motion to declare Florida Statute §790.01 unconstitutional as applied to individuals aged 18-20, dismissing the charge of carrying a concealed firearm.
Walkes, a 19-year-old arrested on March 21, 2025, was charged with a third-degree felony for carrying a concealed firearm in violation of Florida state law, which prohibits concealed carry for those under 21. The incident occurred when officers, responding to a disabled vehicle, noticed a bulge in Walkes’s waistband, leading to the discovery of a loaded semi-automatic pistol. His defense argued that the statute infringed on his Second Amendment rights, a claim the court upheld after rigorous scrutiny.
The court’s decision hinged on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, which mandates that firearm laws be consistent with the plain text of the Second Amendment and the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulations. The Florida law, amended in 2023 to allow permitless concealed carry for those 21 and older, faced scrutiny for its blanket prohibition on 18-20-year-olds. The defense contended that this age group, legally recognized as adults capable of voting, marrying, serving in the military, and being tried as adults, should not be denied a core constitutional right. They cited the Militia Act of 1792, which required 18-year-olds to bear arms, as evidence of historical acceptance.
The state countered by pointing to a late 19th-century tradition of restricting firearm sales to those under 21, a practice upheld in NRA v. Bondi. However, the court found this argument insufficient under Bruen’s historical test. The state failed to provide a Founding-era law broadly prohibiting concealed carry by 18-20-year-olds or a comparable justification for the ban. Instead, it highlighted laws restricting purchases and other activities (e.g., alcohol and tobacco) based on maturity, which the court deemed irrelevant to the right to bear arms.
“The state has failed to identify Founding-era law that broadly prohibited the concealed carry of firearms by eighteen-to-twenty year olds,” Ledee wrote. “The state also failed to cite to any historical regulation imposing a burden or justification comparable to Florida’s concealed carry ban as applied to eighteen-to-twenty year olds.”
Key to the ruling was the distinction between owning, purchasing, and carrying firearms. While federal and Florida law prohibit sales to those under 21, 18-20-year-olds can legally possess firearms acquired through gifts or inheritance. The court noted the inconsistency: these individuals can openly carry gifted firearms but not conceal them, a restriction deemed incompatible with Second Amendment protections. The recent McDaniels v. State decision, which struck down Florida’s open carry ban, further underscored this inconsistency.
Applying Bruen’s Text, History, and Tradition Test, the court found that concealed carry falls within the Second Amendment’s scope, as affirmed by Heller and McDonald. The state’s failure to identify a historical analogue justifying the ban on 18-20-year-olds led to the conclusion that the Florida law violates their rights. The court rejected the state’s argument that 21 is the “age of reason,” emphasizing that constitutional rights cannot depend on parental largesse or inheritance.
This ruling does not eliminate all firearm restrictions but challenges age-based categorical bans that lack historical precedent. It aligns with a growing judicial trend of reassessing state laws under the Bruen standard, potentially influencing future legislation. The decision leaves the framework of firearm regulations to legislative debate, suggesting that Florida may need to revisit its approach to balance public safety and constitutional rights.
The case raises broader questions about the rights of young adults and the evolving interpretation of the Second Amendment. As the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed this issue, the ruling may face appeals, possibly reaching higher courts. For now, it stands as a landmark victory for Walkes and a call to align firearm laws with historical traditions, ensuring that legal adults are not unduly stripped of their constitutional protections.
Patrick ‘Tate’ Adamiak’s Criminal Case Now Depends on his Appellate Attorney
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
