Massachusetts SJC Upholds Age-21 Minimum for Carry Licenses, 5-2

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on October 20, 2026 that the state may bar adults under 21 from obtaining a license to carry a firearm. It affirmed the conviction of Mikai Thomson in Commonwealth v. Thomson. Justice Wolohojian wrote for the court. Justice Kafker, joined by Justice Wendlandt, concurred in part and dissented in part, which leaves the vote at 5-2 among the seven justices who sat.

The court held that the age-21 requirement in G. L. c. 140, § 131 (d) (iv) is consistent with the Second Amendment. Thomson could press only a facial challenge, which attacks the law itself. He could not bring an as-applied challenge, which attacks the law as used against him, because he never applied for a license.

Thomson was 20 in December 2021. A police officer stopped a car that went through a red light, and Thomson was in the front passenger seat. The officer asked whether anyone had a weapon. Thomson, unlike the other two occupants, did not answer, and the officer told him to get out. He pushed the officer and ran, and he discarded a loaded 9mm semiautomatic handgun along the way.

A jury convicted him of carrying a firearm without a license under G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a), and of assault and battery on a police officer. He raised no issue on the assault conviction, and the court affirmed it without discussion. The opinion does not state his sentence.

The court said standing for an as-applied challenge requires having applied for a license. It rejected the Third Circuit’s Lara decision as a basis for excusing that step, because Lara turned on federal Article III standing, which does not bind state courts. It left open standing based on futility in a better record. Here nothing showed that age alone was the barrier. Thomson could still bring the facial challenge.

How the Court Applied Bruen and Rahimi

The court worked under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022). Under Bruen, the government must show a modern gun law fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. It also applied United States v. Rahimi (2024), which asks whether the “how” and “why” of a modern law match historical ones. It cited two 2026 decisions, United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez, as further examples. The court assumed without deciding that a 20-year-old is among “the people” the amendment protects.

On the historical question, the court found the “why” was to protect young people from the consequences of their own immaturity. The “how” was a graduated scheme. As the opinion lays it out for the time of the December 2021 offenses, a person could get an FID card, which covers a non-large-capacity rifle or shotgun, at 15 with a parent’s certificate and at 18 without one. A license to carry waited until 21. The court matched that to founding-era militia law, under which minors were armed by parents, guardians or towns and served under commanders’ supervision. It added the infancy doctrine, under which minors could not be bound by contracts beyond necessaries and could not keep their own earnings.

Courts on Both Sides

The court adopted the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc decision in National Rifle Ass’n v. Bondi (2025) and cited other rulings that upheld age limits.

• Picon v. United States, D.C. Court of Appeals, 2025.
• State v. Fields, Maryland Appellate Court, 2026.
• Escher v. Noble, U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, August 21, 2026, which upheld the same Massachusetts restriction.

Kafker’s opinion lists federal appeals courts that went the other way.

• Reese, Fifth Circuit, 2025, struck down a ban on handgun purchases by 18-to-20-year-olds.
• Worth, Eighth Circuit, 2024, struck down Minnesota’s limit on carry permits for that age group.
• Lara, Third Circuit, 2025, struck down a ban on carrying outside the home during a state of emergency.

Kafker wrote that the question has “resulted in a Circuit Court split that only the Supreme Court” can resolve.

The Partial Dissent

Kafker agreed that Thomson could bring a facial challenge but would have sent the case back for more briefing and expert historians. He wrote that the Commonwealth “relied on one case and one statute” and that the court “has done the Commonwealth’s work and then forged ahead without providing the defendant an opportunity to respond.” The Attorney General, who defends state statutes, “also did not file anything in this case,” he noted.

The majority said the question was a legal one the parties had raised, and it pointed to its refusal to remand in Commonwealth v. Canjura (2024). Amicus briefs came from the youth advocacy division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services and from E.V., a juvenile.

Thomson can petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, AmmoLand reported on October 22. No filing date appears in the packet.