Hawaii remains the only state in the nation to impose a complete prohibition on firearm ownership by adults aged eighteen to twenty

from HIFICO, November 2, 2025

Hawaii remains the only state in the nation to impose a complete prohibition on firearm ownership by adults aged eighteen to twenty. This sweeping restriction bars lawful young adults from possessing any firearm for any purpose, including the lawful defense of their homes.

The case of Pinales v. Lopez now challenges this unprecedented infringement. At issue is not merely state firearms policy, but a fundamental question of constitutional governance: whether a state may remove core constitutional rights from a class of legal adults based solely on age.

At eighteen, individuals in the United States are fully recognized as adults in virtually all respects. They vote in federal elections, enter binding contracts, marry, live independently, and serve in the armed forces, where they may lawfully bear arms in defense of the nation. They are also fully liable under the criminal law and subject to adult penalties.

Yet the State of Hawaii asserts that these same citizens lack the capacity to exercise the Second Amendment, and in defending its position, has advanced a theory that certain adult citizens may be excluded from the category of “the people” whose rights are protected by the Constitution.

⸻

The State’s Position and Its Constitutional Implications

To justify its ban, Hawaii has submitted expert reports attempting to establish that adults aged eighteen to twenty lack sufficient maturity and present elevated risk, and therefore may be denied a fundamental right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Such reasoning has no place in a constitutional republic. The exercise of constitutional freedoms is not contingent upon government assessments of maturity, statistical assertions, or generalized predictions about a population. The rights guaranteed to the people are not privileges granted at the state’s discretion.

Here’s what the state’s experts have to say about the matter:

Saul Cornell (Legal & Historical Perspective)

Cornell argues that in early American law, individuals under 21 were considered legal “infants” without full rights or autonomy. He claims the founding era did not recognize independent firearm rights for those under 21, and that age-based firearm restrictions are consistent with historical legal tradition.

⸻

Louis Klarevas (Public Safety & Mass Violence Research)

Klarevas asserts that adults aged 18–20 are disproportionately represented in gun violence and mass shootings. He argues that restricting firearm access for this age group is justified to protect public safety and may reduce the frequency and lethality of mass-casualty events.

⸻

Elizabeth Cauffman (Developmental Psychology)

Cauffman states that people in their late teens and early twenties are still developing impulse control, judgment, and emotional regulation. Because of this developmental stage, she argues that individuals under 21 are at higher risk of poor decision-making and therefore can be subject to heightened firearm restrictions.

⸻

Robert Spitzer (Historical Firearms Regulation)

Spitzer claims that historical laws frequently regulated minors’ access to weapons. He argues that militia obligations for 18- to 20-year-olds did not automatically grant them personal firearm rights, and that modern age restrictions align with historical regulatory practice in the United States.

⸻

Randolph Roth (Criminology & Violence History)

Roth argues that younger adults historically accounted for a disproportionate share of violent crime. He asserts that governments historically responded by imposing weapon restrictions on youth, and that today’s age-based firearm laws are consistent with long-standing approaches to reducing violence.