No. On October 20, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld the Massachusetts rule that bars anyone under 21 from getting a license to carry (LTC), rejecting a Second Amendment challenge in Commonwealth v. Thomson. The vote was 5–2. The decision keeps the license to carry under 21 rule in force in every Massachusetts court, and it removes a defense that some young adults charged with unlicensed carrying had hoped to use. Two justices dissented, a federal challenge to the same age line is still alive, and the question of U.S. Supreme Court review remains open. Here is what the court decided, why, and what it means if you are 18, 19, or 20.
What Happened in Commonwealth v. Thomson
In December 2021, a police officer stopped a car in Boston for running a red light. Mikai Thomson, then 20, sat in the front passenger seat. When the officer asked if anyone had a weapon, Thomson stayed silent, got out when asked, pushed the officer, and ran. He tossed a loaded 9mm handgun as he fled. A jury convicted him of assault and battery on a police officer and of carrying a firearm without a license.
Thomson had never applied for a license. On appeal, he argued that the licensing statute violates the Second Amendment because it refuses to issue an LTC to anyone under 21. If the age bar was unconstitutional, he argued, the state could not convict him for lacking a license he was never allowed to get. He raised this argument for the first time on appeal, not at trial. The SJC took the case from the Appeals Court on its own initiative.
Why the Court Rejected His "As-Applied" Challenge
Lawyers distinguish two kinds of constitutional challenges. A facial challenge argues a law is unconstitutional in every application. An as-applied challenge argues the law is unconstitutional as used against one particular person.
The SJC refused to hear Thomson’s as-applied challenge. Massachusetts courts have long required a person to apply for a license and be denied before challenging the licensing scheme as applied to him. Thomson never applied. Just as important, nothing in the record showed that age was the only thing standing between him and a license. He might have been disqualified for some other reason, such as a prior juvenile adjudication for a violent crime.
The court left one door open. It acknowledged that a person might have standing without applying if he can prove that applying would have been futile, and it said it does not foreclose that argument “in an appropriate case on an adequate record.” Thomson’s case was not that case.
The court did let Thomson bring a facial challenge, because a person prosecuted under a licensing law can always argue the law is invalid on its face. And the court said its facial analysis would cover the substance of his argument as a 20-year-old anyway.
How the SJC Upheld the License to Carry Under 21 Rule
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Bruen, a gun law survives only if the government shows it fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The government does not need a “historical twin,” but it must point to past laws that burden the right in a similar way (the “how“) and for a similar reason (the “why“).
The SJC skipped a threshold fight. Courts across the country disagree about whether 18- to 20-year-olds count among “the people” the Second Amendment protects. The SJC assumed they do, without deciding the question, and moved straight to history.
The Modern Scheme
The court described Massachusetts law as a graduated ladder built on three factors: age, supervision, and setting. Young children can handle and fire guns only under a licensed adult’s supervision. At 15, a teenager can get a Firearms Identification (FID) card with a parent’s consent. At 18, no parental consent is needed. At 21, a person can apply for an LTC and carry without supervision. The court found the “how” of this scheme is supervision that loosens as a young person matures, and the “why” is protecting young people and the public from the consequences of youthful immaturity.
The Historical Tradition
The court then looked to the founding era and found a matching pattern:
Militia service. Massachusetts required young men to serve in the militia, but minors were not expected to arm themselves. Parents, guardians, or masters supplied their guns, and the town supplied them for poor families. Town-owned arms were stored centrally and returned after service. A minor was not fined for showing up without a gun; the adult responsible for equipping him was.
The infancy doctrine. Anyone under 21 was legally an “infant.” Infants could not be bound by contracts except for necessities like food and clothing, and the court found no case treating firearms as a necessity.
No independent income. A minor’s earnings belonged to his father, so a young person had little practical ability to buy a gun on his own.
Putting these together, the court concluded that young people at the founding had access to firearms mainly through responsible adults and under supervised conditions, which mirrors today’s licensing scheme. The court adopted the historical survey in the Eleventh Circuit’s 2025 en banc decision upholding Florida’s under-21 purchase ban, and it noted that courts in Washington, D.C., and Maryland, along with a federal judge in Massachusetts, had upheld similar age limits.
The court also emphasized that legislatures have always set the age of legal competence, whether for jury service, marriage, or contracts. Reasonable people can debate whether the right age for carrying a gun is 18 or 21, the court said, but that debate belongs to the Legislature.
What the Dissent Argued
Justice Kafker, joined by Justice Wendlandt, dissented in part. They agreed Thomson could bring a facial challenge, and they did not conclude that the age limit is unconstitutional. Their objection was to how the majority reached its answer.
The dissent made four main points:
The Commonwealth barely carried its burden. Under Bruen, the government must prove the historical tradition. According to the dissent, the prosecution’s brief cited one case and one 1776 statute, and that statute appeared to treat males over 16 the same as adults.
The court did the government’s homework. The majority built its historical analysis largely through its own research, so Thomson never had a chance to respond to it.
History is hard, and judges are not historians. The dissent questioned whether founding-era limits on young men reflected concern about immaturity, or instead reflected a patriarchal farm economy in which fathers controlled their sons’ labor and wages. It noted that young men used guns for hunting, protecting livestock, and joining sheriffs’ posses, and that neither the court nor the Commonwealth identified any founding-era law limiting firearm possession by 18- to 20-year-olds.
Purchase is not possession. The Eleventh Circuit decision the majority relied on involved gun sales, while Thomson’s case involved possession and carrying.
The dissent would have sent the case back to the trial court for expert historical testimony and further briefing.
What the Thomson Decision Means for 18- to 20-Year-Olds Now
You cannot get an LTC until you turn 21. For anyone asking about an under 21 license to carry in Massachusetts, the answer after Thomson is settled for now. Licensing authorities will continue to deny applications from anyone under 21, and Massachusetts trial courts are bound by Thomson.
An FID card covers less than it used to. Under Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, an FID card allows you to possess rifles and shotguns that are not large capacity or semiautomatic. It does not cover handguns or semiautomatic long guns, except under direct LTC-holder supervision at a licensed range or shooting club. Thomson addressed the LTC age limit, not these FID restrictions, which are the subject of a separate federal lawsuit discussed below. Federal law separately bars licensed dealers from selling handguns to anyone under 21.
Supervised shooting is still legal. Young people can still shoot at ranges, take instruction, and hunt within the supervision rules the statute sets out.
Carrying a handgun without a license carries a mandatory sentence. A conviction for unlicensed carrying of a firearm carries a minimum of 18 months, and the case cannot be resolved with a continuance without a finding or placed on file. After Thomson, a facial Second Amendment challenge to the age limit will not get a defendant out of that charge in a Massachusetts court.
If you are charged, preserve the issue. Thomson raised his constitutional argument for the first time on appeal, which hurt him twice: the court reviewed it under a demanding standard, and no factual record existed to support an as-applied claim. Anyone under 21 charged with a gun offense should raise the constitutional challenge in the trial court, build a record showing that age was the only barrier to licensing, and consider whether a futility argument or expert historical evidence can strengthen the claim.
The majority left the futility question open, and the dissent described the kind of record it thought was missing. Preserving the issue also keeps it available if the U.S. Supreme Court changes the landscape later.
Will the Supreme Court Review the Under-21 Gun Question?
Thomson can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case. A defendant generally has 90 days from a state high court’s judgment to file a petition for certiorari. But the odds of the Court taking Thomson are low.
The case for review. Federal appeals courts are split. The Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits have struck down age-based limits on 18- to 20-year-olds, while the Fourth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have upheld them. Courts in D.C. and Maryland have sided with the states, and the SJC has now joined them. Splits like this are the classic reason the Supreme Court steps in.
The case against review. The Supreme Court just passed on the issue. On June 30, 2026, it denied review in a group of under-21 cases, including the NRA’s challenge to Florida’s purchase ban, a challenge to the federal ban on handgun sales to 18- to 20-year-olds, and Pennsylvania’s appeal of the Third Circuit ruling that struck down its emergency carry restriction. Justice Thomas noted that he would have heard one of them. The same day, the Court agreed to hear challenges to bans on AR-15-style rifles.
Thomson is also a weak vehicle. The argument was not raised at trial. Only the facial challenge was decided, and the Supreme Court said in Rahimi that facial challenges are the hardest to win. There is no factual record. Thomson never applied for a license. And the facts involve flight from police, an assault on an officer, and a discarded loaded gun, which do not make a sympathetic test case.
The more likely path. The stronger candidate is Escher v. Noble, a federal lawsuit brought by a young Massachusetts resident and several gun-rights groups challenging the state’s restrictions on 18- to 20-year-olds’ access to handguns and semiautomatic firearms. A federal judge in Boston ruled for the state in August 2026, and the plaintiffs asked the judge in September to alter that judgment.
An appeal to the First Circuit is the expected next step. A civil case with a law-abiding plaintiff and a developed record is the kind of case the Supreme Court prefers. The Court’s upcoming AR-15 decision could also reshape how lower courts draw historical analogies, which could reopen the age question indirectly.
Does Question 9 Change the Under-21 Rule?
On November 3, 2026, Massachusetts voters will decide Question 9, a referendum on Chapter 135. A yes vote keeps the law. A no vote repeals it.
Repeal would not let 18- to 20-year-olds get an LTC. The age-21 requirement for a license to carry existed before Chapter 135, and Thomson itself analyzed the pre-2024 version of the statute. Repeal would, however, likely restore the earlier FID rules, which allowed FID holders to possess non-large-capacity rifles and shotguns, including some semiautomatic models.
Talk to a Massachusetts Firearms Lawyer
The rules for young gun owners in Massachusetts are strict, and the consequences of a mistake are severe. If you or your child is under 21 and facing a gun charge, the firm offers free consultations for criminal cases. If you have questions about FID eligibility, what you can lawfully possess, or licensing after you turn 21, we can help with that too. Call or text 617-295-7500, or send us a message below.
