July 22, 2024 – In Worth v. Jacobson, et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota striking down a section in the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act of 2003 (“Carry Ban”), Minn. Stat. § 624.714, as unconstitutional. The Carry Ban, which has been in place since 2003, requires citizens to obtain a permit to carry a handgun in a “public place.” It also requires applicants to be at least 21 years old, thus prohibiting adults aged 18 to 20 from carrying a handgun in a “public place.”
Plaintiffs challenged the age restriction component of the law, arguing that it violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The district court applied the test from the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, and conducted a textual analysis to determine if the law is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. In granting summary judgment, the district court held that Minnesota did not meet its burden to demonstrate that the age restriction is consistent with the Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulations. According to the district court, the plain text of the Second Amendment covered the Plaintiffs’ conduct because 18 to 20-year-olds are among “the people,” and the Second Amendment presumptively guarantees the Plaintiffs “the right” to carry handguns in public for self-defense.
On appeal, Minnesota argued that 18 to 20-year-olds are not members of “the people” because they did not originally have such rights until they turned 21. Minnesota also argued that the age restriction was consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation because 18-20-year-olds did not “possess all their civil and political rights as minors” and “the people,” as stated in the Second Amendment, should only apply to “eligible voters [from the 18th Century], namely white, male, yeomen farmers.” Minnesota further argued that it has the power to regulate firearms in the hands of irresponsible or dangerous groups, such as 18 to 20-year-olds.
In response, the court of appeals determined that ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens that are 18 to 20-year-olds are members of “the people” because: (1) they are members of the political community under Heller’s “political community” definition; (2) “the people” has a fixed definition, though not fixed contents; (3) they are adults; (4) the Second Amendment does not have a freestanding, extratextual dangerousness catchall;” and (5) limiting this right to those eligible to vote in 1776 borders on “frivolous.”
In addition, both courts found Minnesota had failed to show that 18 to 20-year-olds pose a unique threat, and “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, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”
The wide-ranging effect of the Bruen case continues to reverberate around the county as numerous challenges are made to laws restricting law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. Renzulli Law Firm will continue to monitor and update everyone on this exciting field of law. If you have any questions about cases involving the Second Amendment or the firearm industry, please contact John F. Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.