The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate on September 20, officially shutting down the Minnesota Attorney General’s efforts to preserve the state’s ban on firearm carry for individuals aged 18 to 20. The decision follows a legal challenge backed by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).
The challenge was brought forward by plaintiffs Kristin Worth, Austin Dye, and Axel Anderson, who argued that Minnesota’s restrictions on carrying firearms for adults under 21 violated their Second Amendment rights. In April 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Menendez ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but delayed an injunction against the law pending appeal.
In July, a three-judge panel from the Eighth Circuit had unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Circuit Court Judge William Benton, who wrote the opinion, noted that the language of the Second Amendment does not specify an age limit. He highlighted that while the Founders included age restrictions in other areas, such as running for political office, no such limits were placed on the right to bear arms.
“In other words, the Founders considered age and knew how to set age requirements but placed no such restrictions on rights, including those protected by the Second Amendment,” Benton wrote in the decision.
Following the panel’s ruling, Minnesota sought to have the case reheard, either by the same three-judge panel or by the full bench of the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court rejected both requests in an August 21 order, effectively setting the stage for the mandate that was issued on Friday.
With the mandate now in place, Minnesota must either revise its laws to comply with the court’s decision or appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Minnesota Attorney General’s office has not yet commented on whether it plans to pursue further legal action.
Following the mandate, the FPC celebrated the decision on social media.
“This formalizes our victory, and the ban is now officially dead,” the FPC wrote in a post. “If it wishes to continue defending its tyranny, Minnesota must take its tears to SCOTUS.”
The ruling represents a significant win for gun rights advocates in Minnesota, marking the end of a long legal battle over age-based firearm restrictions. For now, the state’s law barring 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying firearms is effectively nullified, pending any potential appeal to the nation’s highest court.
Give money to the FPC! They are the most effective 2nd Amendment defense organization challenging tyrannical laws today.
good.
Barley bought his new-born son an antique flintlock Jaeger rifle. manufactured in that late 1700’s. “I know it is a bit large for him, right now, but he’ll grow into it”, Barley said. “Besides, the rifle will only grow in value as long as we take care of it. Maybe it will pay for college or to start a business. In the meantime, while little Barley is busy pooping his diaper, what day we take this puppy out back and let it bark?”
Barley is a practical guy.
You sound like a brain dead Harris/Walz supporter.
Where is the accountability for purposely and knowingly violating not just peoples rights but the law? These people knew they were violating the constitution.
Qualified Immunity
Yeah, when you have qualified immunity and tax payer dollars to fund you, and not suffer any financial or criminal or civil penalty when you lose a case, its easy to just make stuff up, use your own bias, and say ‘you will not be permitted to do this ’cause we say so’.
Qualified immunity does NOT protect an official if they violate a “clearly established constitutional right”… so those officals ARE indeed liable.
What is/was Minnesota’s restriction on firearm carry for adults 18 to 20 years old? Did Minnesota’s law forbid all carry of all firearms at all times (even while hunting)? Or did Minnesota’s law not allow 18 to 20 year-olds to acquire concealed carry licenses for handgun carry in public? Or … ???
It flat out denied the rights of 18,19,and 20 year olds to even apply for a carry permit. However, Governor Tampon Tim signed into law an automatic voter registration for 15,16,and 17 year olds who apply for their driver’s permit or licenses – I guess that the czar of Mn. and his royal staff consider that an even trade.
Texas prohibits anyone under the age of 21 to carry a handgun.
You lie. The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) lowered the minimum age to 18 for the LTC in January 2023. Concealed or open carry. Change your screen name to B. Minor.
.
Hahaha! You got right to the point. Hats off to you!
Technically B. Major is correct. The text of the Texas carry law still says “21 years old”, it’s just that the DPS can’t enforce the age provision against 18-20 year-olds any more.
However, you’re incorrect and the DPS didn’t lower the age to get an LTC. The courts did, by finding the age restriction unconstitutional.
1) DPS don’t have the power to lower the age. The age requirement was set in law by the legislature. It wasn’t just DPS policy.
2) DPS was sued because they wouldn’t issue a license to an 18-20 year-old adult in contradiction to the law. It’s not the DPS’s job to say “We think the law should really be 18 and up, not 21 and up, so we’re going to issue a permit anyways.” Letting government agencies ignore the law and do what they think is best is incorrect. The courts are there to resolve disputes like this. Please note I’m not saying that I disagree with the court’s decision. I’m saying that having DPS ignore the law and issue an LTC without having a court tell them that the law is unconstitutional would have been the wrong way to go about it.
When you graduate high school, we take off the shock collar, and issue your sidearm, if you have been good.
No DL til you are 25, no sex til you are 32.
/s, unless these ideas prove popular, in which case I will run for office.
If that happen happens, I promise to break at least one of my campaign promises, possibly this one.
When it comes to conceal carry you have a choice to obey restrictive laws passed by those who enjoy armed security or carry anyway for protection. I believe the carry anyway is the choice simply because when a state passes constitutional concealed carry it’s just another day simply because people who refused to be defenseless victims have been carrying anyway.
Thank God I live in Arizona. Constitutional carry. I open carry (some people disagree) all the time. If I have to go into a gun free zone, I switch to my CC, no one knows.
The Minnesota AG ought to do something practical such as stopping at a homeless encampment on the way to the office and directing his security detail to arrest felons living there for possession of firearms.
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minneapolis-encampment-fight-shooting-charges/
You can’t limit Constitutional rights on a whim. They apply to everyone. Voters please note which group is waging war on the Bill of Rights.