Call us now:
By Landsman Law | Gainesville Criminal Defense Attorney
Florida has long held that carrying a concealed firearm is a felony offense, at least until 2023. Even after the law changed in 2023, those under 21 were still not permitted to carry a concealed firearm because they were excluded by statute. A significant new Florida appellate decision could dramatically affect firearm prosecutions involving young adults across Florida. In a sweeping constitutional ruling, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the state’s prohibition on concealed carry by law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20 violates the Second Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. See Eubanks v State No. 4D2025-1698.
The court vacated a conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and concluded that Florida’s statutory scheme unlawfully burdens the constitutional rights of adults who are old enough to vote, join the military, and otherwise participate fully in society.
For individuals charged with firearm offenses in Gainesville, Alachua County, and throughout North Florida, this decision creates important new legal arguments that may affect pending criminal cases. Even if you aren’t charged with an offense, you will want to know if you, your children, or your fellow citizens will have access to firearms and under what circumstances. The following is a synopsis of the appellate decision which was published yesterday out of the 4th DCA (June 18th, 2026).
The Case
The case involved an 18-year-old who was found carrying a concealed handgun. He was charged with:
- Carrying a Concealed Firearm
- Improper Exhibition of a Firearm
The defendant challenged the constitutionality of Florida’s concealed carry laws, arguing that the State could not criminalize the exercise of Second Amendment rights solely because a person was between the ages of 18 and 20.
The Fourth District agreed.
The court held that Florida Statute §790.06(2)(b), which prevents otherwise law-abiding adults under age 21 from qualifying for concealed carry, violates the Second Amendment.
The Most Important Language from the Decision
The court’s strongest constitutional analysis focused on the meaning of the word “infringe” contained in the Second Amendment.
The court explained:
“In this case, the inability of law-abiding adults aged 18 to 20 to use concealed carry available to all law-abiding adults 21 and older would certainly classify as a hindrance and, as such, an infringement of their Second Amendment rights.”
This language is important because the court rejected the argument that a constitutional right must be completely destroyed before it is considered infringed.
Instead, the court held that merely hindering the ability of law-abiding adults to exercise a constitutional right is enough to violate the Second Amendment.
For criminal defense lawyers challenging firearm prosecutions, this language will likely become one of the most cited portions of the opinion.
Why the Court Found the Law Unconstitutional
The court relied heavily on the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in:
- District of Columbia v. Heller
- McDonald v. City of Chicago
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
- United States v. Rahimi
Under Bruen, courts must ask two questions:
1. Does the Second Amendment Cover the Conduct?
The Fourth District concluded that it does.
The court found that adults aged 18 to 20 are part of “the people” protected by the Constitution and therefore enjoy Second Amendment protections.
The opinion emphasized that:
- 18-year-olds can vote
- 18-year-olds can join the military
- Florida law defines individuals 18 and older as adults
- Constitutional rights generally belong to all members of the political community
The court rejected the argument that 18- to 20-year-olds should be treated as a separate class of citizens with fewer constitutional rights.
2. Is the Restriction Consistent with Historical Tradition?
The court found that Florida failed to prove any historical tradition supporting a categorical ban on concealed carry by law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20.
The opinion noted that:
- Founding-era militia laws often required 18-year-olds to possess arms.
- Historical sources showed young adults were expected to be armed.
- No founding-era laws imposed a similar age-based prohibition on carrying firearms.
Because Florida could not establish a historical analogue, the statute failed the constitutional test required by Bruen.
“The Second Amendment Is Not a Second-Class Right”
Another major theme throughout the opinion is the rejection of treating the Second Amendment differently from other constitutional rights.
The court repeatedly cited Supreme Court precedent recognizing that:
The Second Amendment is not a “second-class right.”
The judges emphasized that the government cannot deny constitutional protections simply because officials believe a particular group may be more likely to misuse those rights.
The opinion specifically rejected arguments that adults aged 18 to 20 could be disarmed merely because they are allegedly less responsible than older adults.
What Does This Mean for Firearm Charges in Gainesville and Alachua County?
For defendants charged in Gainesville, Alachua County, Bradford County, Levy County, Putnam County, Marion County, and throughout the Eighth Judicial Circuit, this decision may create significant opportunities to challenge certain firearm prosecutions.
Potentially affected charges include:
Carrying a Concealed Firearm
Young adults between 18 and 20 who were charged solely because they could not legally qualify for concealed carry may now have constitutional arguments available.
Convictions Not Yet Final
Cases currently on appeal may be able to rely on this decision.
Pending Cases
Defense attorneys may seek dismissal of concealed firearm charges based on the Fourth District’s reasoning.
Motions to Suppress and Constitutional Challenges
The decision provides extensive constitutional analysis that defense lawyers can use when challenging firearm-related prosecutions.
Anyone facing firearm charges should consult with an experienced Gainesville criminal defense attorney to determine whether this new authority may apply to their case.
What About the Eighth Circuit Versus the Fourth District?
This is where things become particularly important.
Fourth District Court of Appeal
The Fourth District covers:
- Palm Beach County
- Broward County
- Martin County
- St. Lucie County
- Indian River County
- Okeechobee County
Within the Fourth District, trial courts are generally bound by this decision unless it is overturned by the Florida Supreme Court.
Eighth Judicial Circuit
The Eighth Judicial Circuit includes:
- Alachua County
- Bradford County
- Baker County
- Gilchrist County
- Levy County
- Union County
The Eighth Circuit falls within the jurisdiction of Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal.
As a result:
- The Fourth District decision is not automatically binding on judges in Gainesville or Alachua County (however see Pardo below)
- However, it is highly persuasive authority.
- Defense attorneys can cite the decision and urge local courts to adopt its reasoning.
- Prosecutors will likely argue that the decision is not controlling outside the Fourth District.
The result may be different rulings in different parts of Florida until the issue is ultimately resolved by the Florida Supreme Court. There is a longstanding principle regarding whether one Florida appellate decision is binding on another DCA jurisdiction. The primary case controlling this issue is Pardo v State (596 So. 2d at 666.) which stands for the holding that “In the absence of inter-district conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts.” However in practical terms, the 1st DCA could distinguish the holding in Eubanks, another pending case could cause a conflict amongst the DCA’s, or some other circumstance could arise creating some opportunity for a sister Court to not follow suit.
How Does This Compare to the First District’s Open Carry Decision?
The Fourth District also discussed the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in McDaniels v. State, which found Florida’s open carry ban unconstitutional.
The court recognized that the Attorney General had already indicated it would no longer defend prosecutions under Florida’s open carry statute following McDaniels.
Taken together, these cases represent some of the most significant Second Amendment developments in Florida in decades.
They suggest Florida appellate courts are increasingly applying the United States Supreme Court’s Bruen framework to strike down firearm restrictions that lack historical support.
What Should You Do If You Are Charged with a Firearm Offense?
Firearm laws in Florida are changing rapidly.
Constitutional challenges that may have failed a few years ago are now succeeding in appellate courts throughout the country.
If you are facing charges involving:
- Carrying a concealed firearm
- Possession of a firearm by a young adult
- Open carry allegations
- Weapons offenses in Gainesville
- Firearm charges in Alachua County
it is critical to have an attorney evaluate whether recent Second Amendment decisions may provide a defense.
At Landsman Law, we closely monitor developments in Florida firearm law and constitutional criminal defense litigation. New appellate decisions can create opportunities to challenge charges, suppress evidence, or seek dismissal of criminal cases.
Contact Landsman Law
If you have been arrested or charged with a firearm offense in Gainesville, Alachua County, or anywhere in North Florida, contact Landsman Law for a consultation.
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
Criminal Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman at Landsman Law helps people accused of crimes in Gainesville, Alachua County, Bradford County, Levy County, Gilchrist County, Putnam, Marion and surrounding areas of north Florida. If you need help for yourself or a loved one, contact Criminal Defense Attorney Matt Landsman for a free consultation today. For help with any Criminal Matter from Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Matt Landsman – CALL NOW
If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.