Minnesota's anti-gun Attorney General says he's weighing his options after the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the state's ban on concealed carry for adults younger than 21 violates the Constitution, but he also took a swipe at young adults in general as he decried the court's opinion. 

In a statement, AG Keith Ellison said it was "common sense" to bar young adults from exercising their right to bear arms, adding, "just days ago, a 20-year-old tried to take the life of the former President of the United States." 

Rob Doar (DOR) with the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus calls that statement "a ridiculous appeal to emotion." Doar says, "The individual who carried out that attack stole his father's firearm. There's no indication of whether or not he had a permit to carry, but it's a little bit ridiculous to believe that a permit to carry would have weighed into his calculus about the attack at all."

In Pennsylvania, you also must be 21 years old to apply for a carry license (though that law too is being challenged in federal court), so no, the 20 year old who tried to assassinate Donald Trump did not have a concealed carry permit. But despite Ellison's insinuation, the vast majority of young adults pose no threat to Trump or anyone else. They're not violent criminals, and they deserve access to their fundamental civil liberties just like every other adult. 

Ellison, however, sounds like he's going to appeal Tuesday's ruling to try to keep the current prohibition in place. And until the appeals process is exhausted, Ellison says under-21's need not apply. 

Unfortunately for the AG, that's not his decision to make. Now that the Eighth Circuit has upheld the decision by the district court, the plaintiffs will almost certainly request that the state be barred from enforcing the under-21 carry ban, and it will be up to the district court judge to grant or deny that request. I wouldn't be shocked if the courts do maintain the status quo, but there's a strong argument to be made that doing so will cause under-21s to suffer irreparable harm, while the state has little chance of prevailing in its appeal. 

Ellison decried Tuesday’s ruling and said the Bruen decision “open[ed] the floodgates to litigation from gun advocacy groups looking to undo reasonable safety legislation.”

“The people of Minnesota want and deserve solutions that reduce shootings and improve public safety, and today’s ruling only makes that more difficult,” the attorney general wrote in a statement. “Despite this setback, I remain as committed as ever to improving public safety in Minnesota by championing and defending lifesaving, common-sense gun violence prevention measures.”

Ah yes, the "lifesaving" act of depriving adults of their ability to lawfully carry a gun in self-defense. If Ellison is serious about improving public safety, he should go after his fellow Democrats, not concealed carry holders. It's DFL lawmakers who are trying to lessen the penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime by repealing the mandatory minimum three-year sentence (five years for repeat offenders). 

While HF 4277 didn't get very far in the legislature this year, it's indicative of how progressives like Ellison view the issue of crime and public safety; cut violent offenders slack while going hard after legal gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms. If Minnesota voters want to go soft on crime that's their choice, but as the Eighth Circuit just reminded us all, that doesn't give them the right to infringe on our fundamental civil liberties in the name of increased safety for all.