Gun Rights Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Massachusetts Age Restrictions for Concealed Carry

Ridiculously few people think children should be running around armed as a general rule. There are exceptions, such as when they’re hunting or at the range, but minors just waltzing around with guns is something most people are never going to be cool with.

But adults? That’s a different matter for a large number of people.

The problem is that a lot of anti-gunners seem to think that many adults are actually children. I mean, sure, they want to treat us all as children, but I mean treating legal adults like kids. They count some of them as children so they can inflate the number of “children” killed in the US and they deny them their right to keep and bear arms at every opportunity.

They do this in far too many places to literally anyone under the age of 21 to varying degrees.

Like in Massachusetts where they can’t get a concealed carry permit. Now, the NRA,Second Amendment Foundation, and others are trying to change that in the only way you get gun rights in the state. They’re taking Massachusetts to court.

Via a press release:

Today, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), along with the Gun Owners’ Action League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and an individual, Mack Escher, filed a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’s prohibition on the possession and carry of handguns and semiautomatic firearms by adults under 21.

On July 25, 2024, Governor Maura Healey signed H.B. 4885, “an omnibus bill altering in several respects existing Massachusetts laws pertaining to firearms.” Along with many other extreme restrictions, the law entirely bans 18-to-20-year-olds from possessing or carrying any type of handgun or semiautomatic firearm.

“Massachusetts’s new gun control law is one of the most severe attacks on the right to keep and bear arms in our nation’s history,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “Vindicating the rights of young adults is just our first step towards dismantling this unconstitutional law.”

Under the law, adults under 21 are eligible for a firearm identification card, but a firearm identification card does not permit its holder to purchase, possess, or transfer any handguns or semiautomatic firearms. To exercise those rights, Bay Staters must obtain a license to carry, but the law declares adults under 21 ineligible for that very license.

The Supreme Court has already held in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), that law-abiding citizens have a right to possess handguns and other “common” firearms—which includes semiautomatic firearms. In the NRA’s landmark victory, NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), the Court held that law-abiding citizens have a right to publicly carry firearms. Because 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment (as the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits have all recently decided), Massachusetts’s prohibition on the possession and carry of handguns and semiautomatic weapons by adults under 21 clearly violates the Second Amendment.

The complaint in Escher v. Noble was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

And, of course, the SAF sent their own press release out as well. After all, they’re in the lawsuit as well, 

he Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging a Massachusetts statute which bans young adults in the 18-to-20 age group from acquiring, possessing, or carrying any semiautomatic firearm of any type or any handgun. The case is known as Escher v. Mason.

Joining SAF are the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners Action League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Firearms Policy Coalition and a private citizen, Mack Escher, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys Jason Guida with a law office in Saugus, Mass., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Named as defendants are Col. Christopher Mason, superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, and Heath J. Eldredge, chief of police in Brewster, Mass., in their official capacities. 

Plaintiffs are challenging provisions of Massachusetts law enacted with passage of H.B. 4885, signed in July 2024 by Gov. Maura Healey.

“Massachusetts’s law barring 18-20-year-olds from being able to acquire, possess, and carry commonly possessed firearms fails to comport with the Constitution’s command,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “These adult individuals are entitled to the full scope of the Second Amendment’s protections, yet the State has opted to affirmatively treat them as if they have less rights. An honest look at our nation’s history and tradition will only yield one result, that is, this law is blatantly unconstitutional.”

“Federal law allows for legal action against states that deprive individuals of federal constitutional rights under color of state law,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “State legislatures that adopt such restrictive laws invariably mask their motives by claiming they are ‘gun safety’ measures, but this isn’t about guns, it’s about rights. It’s time for anti-gun officials in Massachusetts and elsewhere to understand that.”

Then we have a press release from Gun Owners of America on the lawsuit:

Gun Owners of America (GOA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners Action League (GOAL), and Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A), alongside plaintiff Mack Escher, have filed a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’ unconstitutional restrictions on 18- to 20-year-old adults possessing, purchasing, or carrying semiautomatic firearms and handguns. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, argues that the state’s laws violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by infringing upon the constitutional rights of young adults. 

Under H.B. 4885, Massachusetts has enacted a law that completely bans 18-to-20-year-olds from acquiring, possessing, or carrying semiautomatic firearms and handguns, leaving them defenseless and stripping them of their fundamental rights. The plaintiffs argue that this ban has no historical precedent and directly contradicts Supreme Court rulings that affirm the Second Amendment’s protection of firearms for self-defense.  And as the complaint makes clear, historically, 18-year-olds were even required to keep and bear the same sort of common firearms that older citizens owned. 

GOA and its 2A allies are seeking a court order declaring the law unconstitutional, a permanent injunction against its enforcement, and an award for attorney’s fees and costs. 

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA, issued the following statement: 

“The government has no right to pick and choose which Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Massachusetts’ unconstitutional ban on young adults owning firearms for self-defense is an egregious attack on the rights of law-abiding citizens. If an 18-year-old can serve in the military, vote, and enter contracts, they absolutely have the right to defend themselves. GOA will fight to ensure this unconstitutional law is struck down.” 

Sam Paredes, Gun Owners of America Board Member, added: 

“This lawsuit is about holding Massachusetts accountable for violating the Second Amendment. There is no historical tradition of banning young adults from keeping and bearing arms. This law is just another attempt by anti-gun politicians to strip fundamental rights away from law-abiding citizens. GOA and its allies will not stand by while Massachusetts tramples on the Constitution.” 

And last but certainly not least, we have the Firearms Policy Coalition being a bit more restrained than you typically see them be on X. Sadly. 

Anyway, the press release:

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a new federal lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’s ban that prevents 18-20-year-old adults from acquiring, possessing, or carrying handguns and semiautomatic firearms. The complaint in Escher v. Noble can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/escher.

“Adults between the ages of 18 and 20 are part of ‘the people,’ and there is no historical tradition of limiting the firearms rights of adults on account of their age,” states the complaint. “And as for the types of firearms that Massachusetts forbids them from owning, much less carrying, there can be no dispute that they qualify as ‘arms’ within the ‘plain text’ meaning of the Second Amendment. Handguns and semiautomatic firearms are, in fact, the most popular types of firearms in the country today, and there is no Founding-era historical tradition of banning commonly owned firearms.”

“We are proud to take on another immoral age-based ban and look forward to eliminating these laws throughout the United States,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “As the federal government and other states have found out in our litigation, this unconstitutional gun control scheme cannot survive scrutiny.”

The Escher case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in the litigation by one FPC member as well as Gun Owners’ Action League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and Gun Owners of America. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this FPC Law case.

Honestly, this should be a non-issue, but anti-gun Massachusetts as well as numerous other states just had to make it one.

Keep in mind that these are younger adults who are capable of voting and serving in the military. They’re older than some of the people many Democrats want to allow to vote going forward. They’re able to exercise their First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights, among the many others afforded to all adults in this country.

It’s just the Second Amendment that is somehow different. That’s the right they can’t be trusted with, even as many who would argue that also want to allow children to make life-altering medical decisions on their own with no parental input being accepted.

Lately, we’ve seen a lot of wins in court, so this is definitely the right fight to have. Unless Congress somehow creates a law that overrides the states–which isn’t likely to happen on something like this, if we’re being realistic–then the courts are really the only way forward.

I’d love to see Massachusetts fix its stuff, but the reality is that we all know that will never happen.

It’s going to take the courts in a post-Bruen judicial landscape to make that happen, and I fail to see how any argument meeting Bruen’s history, text, and tradition standard can be offered for something this egregious.

Honestly, this is like the Gun Rights Avengers just heard someone yell, “Avengers, assemble!” and now Massachusetts is going to play the role of Thanos at the end of Endgame.

Personally, I’m here for it.