Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz isn't happy right now.

Sure, he's running for vice president, which should give him all kinds of prestige if he wins, but as an unrepentant gun grabber, he can't be thrilled with a gun control law he signed being overturned by the court.

The law in question restricted the Second Amendment rights of adults under the age of 21 from getting carry permits. These are people who can lawfully own guns, though they can't buy handguns legally, they can own them. Additionally, carrying anything in public--and some people have a loose definition of "public"--requires a permit. So, there are no legal avenues for these adults to exercise their right to bear arms lawfully.

So, it was smacked down.

Now, Second Amendment advocates are taking shots at the vice presidential candidate.

A federal appeals court ruled that Minnesota's law that bans people ages 18 to 20 from obtaining permits to carry guns is unconstitutional, prompting criticism over Governor Tim Walz's stance on the Second Amendment. 

"As a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, I welcome the federal appeals court's decision regarding Minnesota's law. This ruling affirms the constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens to bear arms," Republican Minnesota Rep. Pete Stauber said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "It is crucial, especially at a time when crime rates are a concern, that individuals have the means to protect themselves and their families."

Stauber, who has served in the House of Representatives since January 2019, is known for his background in law enforcement and his focus on public safety.

"Governor Walz’s administration has indeed taken positions that many, including myself, view as hostile toward the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. This ruling is a reminder of the importance of protecting these liberties against overreach," Stauber continued. 

"This decision is not just about carrying guns; it's about respecting and upholding our constitutional rights. It is a significant step toward ensuring that these rights are preserved for all Minnesotans," Stauber said. 

Moreover, while the headline of that piece highlights that the law was signed during a crime wave, it should be noted that those who get carry permits aren't the ones causing problems in Minnesota or anywhere else.

It was never about crime. It was about restricting who and what can get carry permits.

See, it's never really about that one restriction in and of itself. It's also about setting the stage for the next restriction. "We already do this, so why can't we do that?" How many times have you heard "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" used to justify some bit of gun control? It gets worse with some gun control law being used to justify the next gun control.

After all, we have background checks, so what's the harm in just making every gun sale go through them? We already have gun stores send records to the ATF when they shut down, so what's the harm in digitizing them and then creating a gun registration database?

See where I'm going?

Walz isn't happy because his plan got upset by the courts, which is about the only real bulwark we have against people like him.

May he get used to disappointment.