This marks yet another clear and important win for Second Amendment advocates and the rule of law. Despite unprecedented attacks on constitutional liberties by misguided politicians, the constitution is clearly on the side of a law-abiding individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
The burden on regulators and courts after last year’s monumental Bruen decision is to show that restrictions are “consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulations.”
That standard, according to the court, was not met when adults under 21 were prohibited from concealed carry under the 2003 state law.
According to Menendez and her 50-page ruling in Worth v. Harrington, that law “violates the rights of individuals 18-20 years old to keep and bear arms protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”
She indicated that her decision falls in line with the Bruen decision, which established a new legal test for firearms regulations. The high court majority rejected basing gun control statutes on the whims of current leaders.
Instead, firearm regulations must have a basis in the nation’s legal history.
Menendez, grounding her decision in legality and not the grandstanding of self-serving politicians, noted that courts may not consider a state’s policy concerns. The high court ruling also meant that “today’s policy considerations play no role in an analytical framework that begins and ends more than 200 years ago.”
Interestingly, the judge in her lengthy ruling does not appear to believe that allowing adults under 21 to concealed carry is advisable. Menendez cites studies by those opposing young adults being armed in her ruling before ultimately deciding that these concerns do not carry legal weight.
The ruling results in Minnesota adults under 21 who meet all legal requirements being able to obtain a license to exercise their right to constitutional carry.
They must still prove they’ve undergone training, pass a background check, and have no criminal record or serious mental health issues.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison immediately filed an emergency motion for a stay. He requested that the state be given time to file an appeal or “to allow for its orderly implementation.”
He argued that if the court’s decision were overturned on appeal, this would result in “innumerable young people with guns, whose permits were no longer valid.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz pledged to pursue new gun control measures in 2023.
The suit against the state law was brought by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and three individual plaintiffs. The three citizens were all under 21.
The caucus’ chairman, Bryan Strawser, called the decision “a resounding victory for 18-20-year-old adults who wish to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.”
Rob Doar, Senior Vice President and Political Director of the organization went further. He declared that the ruling should be a loud “warning to anti-gun politicians in Minnesota” that there are stalwart defenders of the Second Amendment. His group and others stand ready to pursue legal recourse against infringements on the civil liberties of Minnesotans.
The fact that Judge Menendez appeared to personally agree with the state but ruled for the plaintiffs is a tribute to her judicial integrity. The high court gave a specific test to be followed in Second Amendment cases, and Minnesota’s position did not hold water.
It is high time that more judges and so-called political “leaders” follow suit. The Second Amendment and multiple Supreme Court rulings clearly support gun rights, and until those are reversed through the legal process, they must be upheld and respected.
