Massachusetts Court Upholds Under-21 Carry License Ban, Two Justices Dissent
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Tuesday that the state's ban on licensing adults under 21 to carry handguns or large-capacity firearms is constitutional. The 5-2 split (or majority, as the dissent frames it) leaves 20-year-old Mikai Thomson with a conviction for carrying a firearm without a license. Justice Scott Kafker, joined by Justice Dalila Wendlandt, dissented. Their position: the court should have sent the case back to a lower court for expert testimony and fuller briefing before deciding the question. The ruling applies statewide and closes the door on a licensing path for an entire age bracket of legal adults.
Key Details
The facts that drove the case are simple and, for a gun owner, uncomfortable.
- Defendant: Mikai Thomson, age 20 at the time of the case.
- Incident: Thomson was a passenger in a car that ran a red light. He was arrested in December 2021 after fleeing police and discarding a semiautomatic handgun.
- Charge: Because Thomson held no license to carry, prosecutors charged him with and a jury convicted him of carrying a firearm without a license.
- Licensing barrier: Massachusetts law prevents anyone under 21 from obtaining a license to carry handguns or large-capacity firearms.
- Thomson's argument: He never applied. His lawyers argued that applying would have been futile because the statute barred his license outright, and that the age limit reduces the Second Amendment to a “second-class right.”
- Dissent: Kafker's 28-page opinion says the majority relied on analogies to laws aimed at minors, not adults. He pointed to three federal appeals court decisions that struck down state limits on carrying by adults aged 18 to 20.
Background
The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen set the modern test for gun laws. Under Bruen, the government must show that a regulation fits the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court also described shall-issue licensing schemes as presumptively lawful, and that language has become the foundation for courts upholding licensing rules. In 2024, the Court's United States v. Rahimi decision refined the test, asking whether a law is consistent with principles underlying historical regulation rather than demanding a precise historical twin. Massachusetts has long restricted licenses to those 21 and older. Courts across the country have split on whether that limit survives. The Eighth Circuit in Worth v. Jacobson struck down Minnesota's ban on carrying by 18-to-20-year-olds for self-defense. The Fifth Circuit in Reese v. ATF found the federal ban on handgun sales to under-21 adults unconstitutional. Those decisions gave Thomson's lawyers and the dissenters a clear counterweight. The Massachusetts majority instead read Bruen's licensing language broadly and treated age as a permissible line, which is the reasoning Kafker attacked.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
This ruling hits every adult under 21 in Massachusetts who wants to carry for protection. Those 18-to-20-year-olds can legally own some firearms at home, and they can hunt with a license, but a carry license stays out of reach. Anyone in that age group who carries a handgun in public, even one who has never been in trouble, now carries a felony-level risk on the strength of a decision the state high court just affirmed. The practical lesson cuts two ways. First, do not assume a clean record gets you a permit once you hit 18. In Massachusetts, the age cutoff trumps your history. Second, the case shows how the age question is splitting by state. A young adult who crosses from Massachusetts into a state with different carry rules can face a different legal outcome with the same firearm. Check reciprocity and transport rules before you cross a state line, and understand that Massachusetts treats any handgun carry outside a license as a serious charge. Watch two things next: whether Thomson's lawyers seek review at the U.S. Supreme Court, and whether a circuit split on under-21 carry rights forces the justices to take up the issue.
DownRange Analysis
Thomson's case has sympathetic facts for the defense and bad facts for the defendant. Running from police and tossing a gun is indefensible, and nobody here should pretend otherwise. But the constitutional question stands apart from his conduct. He had no criminal record beyond the gun charge, and the state never argued he was a prohibited person. That leaves age alone as the disqualifier. The futility argument deserves more weight than the majority gave it. Requiring an application you cannot win is no meaningful access to a right. Kafker's dissent is the stronger legal read because it focuses on the analogues. Laws restricting minors do not map cleanly onto restrictions on adults who are legally responsible for their own decisions in every other context, from voting to military service to contracts. What should a gun owner do right now? If you are 18 to 20 in Massachusetts, do not carry a handgun without a license under any circumstances. Talk to a lawyer who handles Massachusetts firearms cases before you take any action. If you are an adult outside the state, watch the petition for certiorari closely. A clean circuit split on under-21 carry would be the best opening for the national fight, and this case is a strong vehicle to bring it forward.
