Under federal law and in most states, while adults under the age of 21 can't buy handguns, they're not prohibited from owning them. Someone can gift them a gun and it will be perfectly legal. This is one of those ways proponents of age restrictions try to get around infringing on the rights of these adults. They argue that they can still possess firearms of whatever type. They just can't buy them.

That's a difference without distinction in most cases, since your rights shouldn't depend on the actions of other people.

Especially when there are so many other restrictions, such as prohibitions on carry permits for those adults under 21. A lawsuit challenging Minnesota's has worked its way up to the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment Foundation just filed a response brief with the Court.

From a press release:

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a case challenging the State of Minnesota’s prohibition on licensed concealed carry by young adults ages 18-20 have filed a response brief with the U.S. Supreme Court encouraging the justices to “grant plenary review and set the case for argument.”

The case is known as Jacobson v. Worth, originally filed in June 2021 as Worth v. Harrington. SAF is joined by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition, and three private citizens, Kristin Worth, for whom the case is named, Austin Dye, and Axel Anderson. While all three have turned 21, the Eighth Circuit Court granted a motion to supplement the record and allow another individual, Joe Knudsen, to carry the complaint. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

SAF won this case at trial and at the appeals court level. Minnesota is appealing the ruling.

“Today’s filing is unique in that we are agreeing with Minnesota’s request in asking the Supreme Court to hear our case to resolve a dispute between the circuits,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The lower courts are not unanimous in their approach to the Second Amendment rights of 18-20-year-olds. It is important that the Court weigh in to confirm that 18-20-year-olds are part of 'the People' and the Second Amendment applies in full to those individuals. The ban Minnesota seeks to uphold eviscerates the right of those adults to be able to carry a firearm for self-defense. This is patently unconstitutional and while we prevailed at the court of appeals, the Supreme Court needs to ensure all the lower courts reach the proper result. By taking this case, they can do just that.”

“A clear majority of federal courts have already protected the Second Amendment rights of young adults,” added SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we note in our brief, we are not aware of any evidence of colonial or Founding-era laws restricting 18-to-20-year-olds from their right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, history is full of evidence that people in this age group were not prevented from keeping or carrying their own arms.”

In fact, it wasn't uncommon for people younger than 18 to carry guns routinely. It wasn't a big issue back in the day. Hell, I remember the guns in the back of pickups belonging to students when I was in high school in the early 90s. No one was freaked then, and none of my classmates were even 18 at the time.

But I get that there are concerns about handguns. There shouldn't be, but there are, particularly for younger adults. Many of the most violent gang members, for example, are those under the age of 21. I understand the concern.

I just can't share it.

First, let's note that there doesn't seem to be much deterrence in current law for criminals under the age of 21. They carry firearms routinely, use them violently regardless of any other factors, and don't blink when arrested for any of it. It doesn't stop them at all.

It's only the law-abiding adults under the age of 21 who are running into an issue. These are people who still have their right to self-defense, are above the age of majority in this country, yet are still prohibited from exercising their constitutionally protected right to bear arms. They can keep them, they just can't leave the house and have them be of any use to their self-defense needs.

I'm sorry, but this shouldn't even be a concern.

My hope is that the Court will hear this case and then make the correct decision. Under Bruen and even under Rahimi, there's absolutely no way this should be permitted to stand.

It would be one thing if we were talking about minors. We're not.

And while the Court is at it, it would be awesome if the ruling also killed all age-based discrimination in gun laws as a whole. You know, just to upset the usual suspects.