Delaware’s latest bid to freeze the federal challenge to HB 451 is more than procedural maneuvering—it’s a calculated attempt to keep 18-to-20-year-olds in constitutional limbo while the state pretends the Third Circuit never spoke. By asking the court to “keep the case on ice,” Delaware is effectively telling young adults that their Second Amendment rights can be paused like a streaming subscription, even though binding precedent already places them squarely inside “the people” protected by the Constitution. The move reveals a deeper strategy: if litigation drags on long enough, the state hopes either the Supreme Court shifts or the plaintiffs simply run out of resources, turning delay into de facto disarmament.

For the broader 2A community this isn’t just a Delaware problem; it’s a live demonstration of how anti-gun jurisdictions exploit every procedural lever once they lose on the merits. The Third Circuit’s recognition that 18-to-20-year-olds are full-rights-bearing adults should have ended the debate, yet Delaware is treating that holding as optional guidance rather than settled law. That posture invites copycat tactics in other circuits and underscores why permitless carry, constitutional carry expansions, and aggressive attorney-fee recovery statutes matter—without them, states can litigate citizens into submission one motion at a time.

The stakes extend beyond handguns. If Delaware succeeds in carving out an age-based exception that survives Bruen scrutiny, the same logic could be repurposed against other disfavored groups, from veterans with minor misdemeanors to new residents. The 2A community should treat this stall tactic as a warning shot: victories in court mean little if they are not paired with relentless enforcement and legislative countermeasures that make such games too expensive to play.