WASHINGTON โ On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear Minnesotaโs appeal to reinstate a ban on gun-carry permits for individuals aged 18-20. The decision leaves unresolved the legal landscape regarding age-based gun rights restrictions.
Simultaneously, the justices opted not to review a case involving the University of Michiganโs gun ban, effectively upholding the prohibition on firearms on campus premises. The courtโs refusal to take up these cases suggests a reluctance to further delve into issues surrounding the constitutional right to โkeep and bear armsโ at this time.
The Supreme Court has consistently bypassed gun-related cases, especially after a significant 2022 decision that expanded gun rights. A subsequent ruling in 2024 upheld a federal law aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence, reinforcing limitations on gun access under certain circumstances.
The choice not to entertain Minnesotaโs case comes as a surprise to some, given that interests from both parties wanted the Supreme Courtโs intervention. Furthermore, federal and state courts have issued conflicting decisions concerning statesโ ability to regulate firearms for young adults without infringing on constitutional rights.
Previously, the St. Louis federal appeals court determined that Minnesotaโs restrictions were at odds with the Second Amendment, which lacks a specified age limit and generally supports the rights of young, law-abiding adults to bear arms. Conversely, January witnessed another federal appeals court in New Orleans overturn a federal mandate restricting handgun purchases to those aged 21 and over.
In February, a federal judge in Hawaii upheld the stateโs regulation, which prohibits gun possession for those under 21. These divergent rulings highlight the ongoing national debate and legal complexity surrounding age restrictions on gun ownership.