SJC Weighs Constitutionality of Massachusetts Gun Age Limits Post-Bruen

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is currently deliberating on a case that could fundamentally reshape the Commonwealth’s restrictive firearm regulatory framework. At the heart of the dispute is whether the state’s long-standing prohibition on individuals aged 18 to 20 obtaining a license to carry handguns remains constitutional in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This case, Commonwealth v. Mikai Thomson, represents a critical test of how state-level public safety mandates interact with the new federal standard that requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The legal challenge stems from the 2021 arrest of Mikai Thomson, who was 20 years old when State Police discovered a 9mm Taurus G3 handgun in his possession following a traffic stop in Boston. Thomson was subsequently convicted of illegal possession of a firearm in 2023. However, his legal team, supported by the Committee for Public Counsel Services, argues that the underlying statute—Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140, Section 131—is unconstitutionally discriminatory against young adults. They contend that 18- to 20-year-olds are part of "the People" protected by the Second Amendment and that there is no historical precedent from the founding era that justifies a blanket ban on handgun carry for this age group.

“

Justice Dalila Wendlandt and Justice Scott Kafker pressed both sides on the historical record, a requirement mandated by the Bruen decision.

During oral arguments held on March 2, 2026, the SJC justices appeared divided, grappling with both the constitutional merits and procedural hurdles. Justice Dalila Wendlandt and Justice Scott Kafker pressed both sides on the historical record, a requirement mandated by the Bruen decision. The Suffolk District Attorney’s Office, represented by Assistant District Attorney Ian MacLean, argued that age-based restrictions are deeply rooted in the nation's history and are a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power to ensure public safety. MacLean emphasized that the right to bear arms has never been absolute and has always been subject to regulations where public necessity demands it.

A significant procedural complication in the case is the issue of standing. The prosecution pointed out that Thomson never actually applied for a license to carry before his arrest. MacLean argued that Thomson should not be allowed to challenge the constitutionality of a licensing scheme he never attempted to navigate, characterizing the move as an attempt to excuse illegal behavior after the fact. Conversely, Thomson’s attorney, Elizabeth Lazar, argued that applying for a license would have been a futile gesture because the law explicitly bars anyone under 21 from eligibility. She maintained that the unconstitutional nature of the statute infected the jury instructions and the very basis of his conviction.