A federal appeals court has ruled that Minnesota's ban on 18- to 20-year-olds obtaining a permit to publicly carry a handgun violates the US Constitution. The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the 2003 law infringes on both the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment.
The three-judge panel unanimously decided that the state cannot lawfully prohibit individuals aged 18 to 20 from obtaining a public carry permit solely based on their age. The court emphasized that Minnesota failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the presumption that young adults seeking to carry handguns for self-defense are protected by the right to bear arms.
The ruling comes in the wake of a recent assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump by a 20-year-old individual, sparking renewed scrutiny of gun laws across the nation. The court's decision is seen as a significant development in the ongoing debate over gun regulations.
The AR-style rifle used in the assassination attempt was legally purchased by the assailant's father, highlighting the complexities surrounding gun ownership and access.
The Minnesota law had been challenged by gun rights groups and affected individuals, leading to a lower federal court declaring it unconstitutional based on a recent Supreme Court ruling that altered the judicial framework for evaluating gun laws.
The appeals court concurred with the lower court's decision, emphasizing that Minnesota's historical analogues did not support the age-based carry ban. The court also dismissed the state's argument that the ban was necessary for public safety, citing a lack of evidence to demonstrate that young adults posed a significant risk with firearms.
The ruling sets a legal precedent for the 8th Circuit states, potentially impacting similar age restrictions in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas. While Minnesota's Attorney General expressed disappointment over the decision, gun rights advocates welcomed the ruling as a victory for constitutional rights.
This landmark ruling underscores the ongoing debate surrounding gun laws and individual rights, shaping the legal landscape for firearm regulations in the region.
