The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has ruled that the state’s law restricting firearm carry licenses to those age 21 and older is constitutional under the Second Amendment.
The decision came in Commonwealth v. Thomson (SJC-13856), decided October 20, 2026. It arose from Mikai Thomson’s December 2021 arrest in Dorchester. Police stopped a car after it ran a red light. Thomson, then 20 and riding as a passenger, fled on foot and discarded a loaded 9mm semiautomatic handgun. He was convicted of carrying a firearm without a license under G.L. c. 269, § 10(a). Massachusetts law (G.L. c. 140, § 131(d)) requires applicants to be at least 21 to obtain a license to carry. Thomson never applied for one. He appealed, arguing the age minimum violates the Second Amendment. The SJC transferred the case and, in an opinion by Justice Wolohojian, affirmed the conviction.
Massachusetts Upholds Ban on Carry Licenses for Adults Under 21
The court applied the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), as refined by United States v. Rahimi (2024). Step one asks whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct. The court assumed, without deciding, that Thomson was part of “the people” despite his age. It noted that a handgun is a bearable arm. Because the conduct was covered, the restriction was presumptively protected, and the burden shifted to the Commonwealth.
In step two, the state must show that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation through relevantly similar analogues. Courts examine the “how” and “why” of the laws; a modern restriction need not be a historical twin. The SJC focused on founding-era militia rules. Able-bodied males (initially from age 16, later 18) were required to serve, but parents, guardians, or masters, not the minors themselves, had to furnish and equip them with the required arms. Towns supplied arms when parents could not. Towns stored and issued arms only for supervised militia duty.
The court also relied on the common-law infancy doctrine, which barred minors from entering most contracts or controlling their own earnings, so the court reasoned they generally could not acquire firearms independently because they could not control their earnings in the founding era until age 21. The court viewed these rules as temporary, age- and supervision-linked limits intended to protect young people from the consequences of immaturity.
Massachusetts’ graduated system—FID cards at younger ages with parental involvement, and unrestricted license-to-carry only at 21—was held closely analogous. Both the historical and modern schemes restrict the same group (those under 21) for a limited period, under supervision or parental involvement, for the same protective purpose. The majority concluded this satisfied Bruen and Rahimi.
Two Justices Question the Majority’s Historical Analysis
The decision was not unanimous. Justices Kafker and Wendlandt concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing on standing but arguing that the historical analogy required more expert briefing and analysis before it could be drawn reliably. The majority leaned on the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc ruling in NRA v. Bondi, which upheld Florida’s under-21 firearm purchase ban. It gave little weight to contrary decisions from the Third Circuit (Lara), Eighth Circuit (Worth), and Fifth Circuit (Reese), which struck down various age-based restrictions on 18-to-20-year-olds. The ruling, therefore, deepens an existing circuit split on whether adults under 21 fall within the Second Amendment’s core protections and whether age-based limits have adequate historical support.
Thomson can petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Court grants review in only about 1% of cases, but a clear and deepening split among the federal circuits on an issue that affects large numbers of adults makes a grant more likely than average. The case highlights ongoing post-Bruen disagreement over the scope of the right for young adults and the proper use of founding-era militia and capacity rules as analogues.
The Massachusetts decision leaves adults ages 18 to 20 facing sharply different interpretations of their constitutional rights depending on where they live. Federal courts have struck down restrictions on young adults purchasing or carrying firearms, while Massachusetts has concluded that those same adults may be denied handgun carry licenses until their 21st birthday.
The Second Amendment does not state that the right to keep and bear arms begins at 21. The historical record showing that young Americans were expected to be armed for militia service deserves serious examination, not reinterpretation into a justification for disarming them.
Until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves these competing interpretations, states will continue applying conflicting constitutional standards to a right that belongs to the people, not merely to those whom state legislators consider old enough to exercise it.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
from https://ift.tt/5Yhj8qW
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment