Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Appeals Court: 21+ Age Requirement for Carry Permits is Unconstitutional

Monday, July 22, 2024

Appeals Court: 21+ Age Requirement for Carry Permits is Unconstitutional

In another Bruen-based invalidation of a gun law, a federal appeals court has struck a Minnesota law that prohibits 18 to 20-year-olds from being eligible for a carry permit, declaring the law to be invalid and enjoining its enforcement. NRA-ILA, which has advocated on behalf of the rights of young adults for decades, had filed an amicus brief supporting the challenge to the carry ban.

The ruling comes at a time when calls to restrict the firearm rights of young adults are likely to become even more acute. President Joe Biden has already used the unsuccessful assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump to again demand an “assault weapon” ban, and has stated that, “[i]f we can’t ban assault weapons, as we should, we must at least raise the age to be able to purchase one to 21.”

Gun control groups are enthusiastic supporters of such bans. In the Minnesota case, for instance, an amicus brief filed by gun control advocates Giffords Law Center, Brady Center, and March for Our Lives Foundation argued that age-based prohibitions are justified under the Bruen framework because young adults, as a class pose a “particular danger” with respect to access to firearms (akin to those suffering from severe mental illness and convicted felons), and that prohibiting individuals who may pose a heightened risk to the public is consistent with the “historical understanding” of the Second Amendment. The groups urged the appellate court to “consider the modern-day” justifications for such bans, including “research confirming that, similar to groups who were restricted from accessing firearms during the Founding era, 18-to-20-year-olds with unencumbered access to firearms pose a substantial risk to themselves and others.”

The court, however, was unmoved.

The case concerned Minnesota’s permit-to-carry statute, Minn. Stat. Ann. § 624.714(2)(b)(2), which requires applicants to be at least 21 years old. The original version of the statute, enacted in 1975, had a minimum age of 18 to be eligible for a permit, but this was amended in 2003 to raise the minimum age to 21. The 2003 legislation included a statement that the Minnesota legislature “recognizes and declares that the second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The provisions of this section are declared to be necessary to accomplish compelling state interests in regulation of those rights.”

Carrying a handgun in public without a permit is a gross misdemeanor in the state, and a conviction for a second or subsequent offense is a felony. Several members of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, aged over 18 but under 21 and otherwise eligible to receive a permit, along with three gun-rights advocacy groups, sued Minnesota, arguing that the age restriction, facially and as applied, violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

In a summary judgment application last year, a federal district court granted the motion, finding the age restriction was facially unconstitutional in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen. (Unlike an as-applied challenge, which requires courts to examine a law based on the plaintiff’s individual circumstances, the higher stakes of a facial challenge require establishing that the law at issue is unconstitutional in all its applications, regardless of individual circumstances.) The court held that young adults aged 18 to 20 were among “the people” covered by the Second Amendment, and that the defendants failed to establish that the law was consistent with the nation’s Founding-era history of firearm regulation.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, in a unanimous decision issued on July 16. In a straightforward application of Bruen, it concluded that young adults are “the people,” and no relevant history or tradition supported an age-based ban on their carrying of firearms.

The government, as did the gun control groups filing briefs in support of the ban, argued that at the time of the founding, 18 to 20-year-olds were underage individuals who fell outside of the “political community” and so could not, today, be considered members of “the people” covered by the Second Amendment. Since the founding, they claimed, states have had the power to regulate guns in the hands of irresponsible, untrustworthy, or dangerous groups.

The NRA amicus brief noted the flaw in this approach:

Minnesota is trying to have its cake and eat it, too. It argues that “the people” is fixed to its historical meaning, but the classes of people who can be deprived of their rights change based on the whim of the present-day legislative branch: “Legislatures may fill in the details [of who is categorically unprotected by the Second Amendment] ‘based on present-day judgments about categories of people whose possession of guns would endanger the public safety.”

The court explained that District of Columbia v. Heller created a “strong presumption” that the right to keep and bear arms applies to “all Americans.” The “Second Amendment’s plain text does not have an age limit,” and it extends to all members of the political community, even those who were not included originally at the time of the founding (noting that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment now sets the age of majority for political rights at age 18). Ordinary, law-abiding 18 to 20-year-olds are included as “the people” because they are adults, members of the “political community,” and because “the Second Amendment does not have a freestanding, extratextual dangerousness catchall.” Moreover, at the initial stage of Bruen analysis, a “claim that a group is ‘irresponsible’ or ‘dangerous’ does not remove them from the definition of the people.”

Under Bruen’s historical analysis requirement, Minnesota had the burden of providing a “well-established and representative historical analogue” of its carry ban, both as to the “how” (the comparable burden it imposed) and its “why” (the comparable justification).

As to the “why,” the government argued that young adults were “not competent to make responsible decisions with guns and pose a risk of dangerousness to themselves and to others,” and that “status-based restrictions from the founding-era created a freestanding dangerousness catchall analogue” (that is, the state could legitimately impose a firearm ban on any group it deemed to be dangerous).

Even assuming this was correct, Minnesota failed to support its claim with evidence that confirmed 18 to 20-year-olds presented a danger to the public. The statistics it relied on covered a period more than ten years after the 2003 law was passed, making it implausible that this information motivated the legislature in raising the age of permit eligibility. The State failed to explain, also, why its other statutory restrictions – including those related to permits, like training and background checks – didn’t sufficiently reduce the risk of danger. Most importantly, though, the court rejected this “freestanding dangerousness” rationale because a “legislature’s ability to deem a category of people dangerous based only on belief would subjugate the right to bear arms ‘in public for self-defense’ to “a second-class right.”

Minnesota’s proffered founding-era analogues likewise missed the mark, all of which were “very different in their ‘how.’” College rules restricting students from possessing guns on campus were internal school rules, not laws subject to constitutional limitations, and municipal ordinances banning discharges regardless of age, or sales of gunpowder (but not guns) to minors, were far from adequate comparables. The government’s reliance on the Militia Act of 1792 (requiring 18 to 20-year-olds to acquire firearms) was the most strategically puzzling, as a “mandate to acquire a firearm is hardly ‘evidence’ that one was previously prohibited from owning one.” Reconstruction-era laws carried much less weight, and were, in any event, distinguishable as inapposite. In summary, “Minnesota did not proffer an analogue that meets the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the Carry Ban for 18 to 20-year-old Minnesotans,” and the law was, accordingly, unconstitutional.

The decision is Worth v. Jacobson, No. 23-2248, 2024 WL 3419668 (8th Cir. July 16, 2024).

The NRA is currently litigating its own challenge to a Florida statute banning sales and transfers of firearms to young adults, and an appeal in that case, National Rifle Association v. Bondi, is pending before the entire Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. We will be updating members on the progress of this and other litigation as developments occur.  

TRENDING NOW
NRA Statement on President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights

News  

Second Amendment  

Friday, February 7, 2025

NRA Statement on President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights

Today, the White House announced a new Executive Order to protect and expand the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. This is the first action taken by President Donald J. Trump to carry through ...

The Hearing Protection Act Introduced in the 119th Congress

News  

Wednesday, February 5, 2025

The Hearing Protection Act Introduced in the 119th Congress

U.S. Representative Ben Cline (R-VA-06) and U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) recently reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 404/S. 364) in the 119th Congress. This commonsense legislation will give gun owners and hunters the opportunity to ...

CMP Resumes 1911 Pistol Sales, Offers Streamline Process and Incentives

News  

Monday, February 3, 2025

CMP Resumes 1911 Pistol Sales, Offers Streamline Process and Incentives

One day before Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States, he held a Make America Great Again rally in Washington, D.C., where he spoke to more than 20,000 energized supporters ...

NFA Prosecution Shows ATF Still Determined to Imprison Americans for Braced Pistols

News  

Monday, February 10, 2025

NFA Prosecution Shows ATF Still Determined to Imprison Americans for Braced Pistols

Documents filed in an ongoing prosecution for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle are raising new concerns about ATF’s enforcement policy concerning pistols with attached stabilizing braces. 

Going, Going… Gone? Privacy and Gun Owner Data Security in California

News  

Monday, February 10, 2025

Going, Going… Gone? Privacy and Gun Owner Data Security in California

Where does privacy go to die? For gun owners and concealed carry applicants and permit holders in the Golden State, the answer must surely be California.

DNC Goes All-In on Gun Control

News  

Monday, February 10, 2025

DNC Goes All-In on Gun Control

A couple weeks ago, we wrote about anti-gun activist David Hogg campaigning to be a Vice Chair for the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  We (somewhat) jokingly endorsed his candidacy, as it would make abundantly clear that ...

Colorado: Senate Delays Vote on Semi-Auto Ban A Second Time

Friday, February 7, 2025

Colorado: Senate Delays Vote on Semi-Auto Ban A Second Time

For the second week in a row, the State Senate has postponed the floor vote for Senate Bill 25-003, the near all-encompassing semi-automatic ban

New Mexico: Anti-Gun Extremists Introduce Sweeping Gun Ban

Wednesday, February 5, 2025

New Mexico: Anti-Gun Extremists Introduce Sweeping Gun Ban

As they have tried in the past, anti-gun radicals in the New Mexico Senate have introduced Senate Bill 279, the "GOSAFE Act," a near all-encompassing ban on semi-automatic and NFA firearms.

Legislation Introduced to Protect Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights

News  

Friday, February 7, 2025

Legislation Introduced to Protect Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights

The Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, U.S. Representative Mike Bost (R-IL-12) and Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), as well as Senator John Kennedy (R-LA), have reintroduced the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act ...

FIND Act Introduced in the 119th Congress

News  

Friday, February 7, 2025

FIND Act Introduced in the 119th Congress

U.S. Representative Jack Bergman (R-MI-01) recently reintroduced H.R. 45, the Firearm Industry Non-Discrimination Act (FIND Act). U.S. Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) also introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate (S. 137). This important legislation would ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.