A law in the Bay State properly prohibiting 18-to-20-year-olds from possessing frequent weapon is illegal and must be overturned, according to , a lawsuit , filed by the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment advocacy organizations.
An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, often known as H. B., is challenged in a complaint filed late last week in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 485, regarding a clause that restricts access to semi-automatic weapons and guns to those who are old enough to obtain a License To Carry.
” Massachusetts’s expected justification for so severely restricting the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds is their age. But 18-to-20-year-olds are people. The lawsuit claims in piece that Massachusetts does not give them any more freedom in this regard than a 15-year-old kid with a word from his parents. This explanation is unsupported by the Second Amendment’s text or the history of our nation. The Second Amendment guarantees the rights of” the people” without regard for age as a textual matter.
Signed into law last month, according to the , lawmakers behind it , H. B. The country’s firearms restrictions were updated in part because of calls for new laws from law enforcement officials who had reported a growing danger from unserialized, made-at-home handguns, in part because of 4885, which was the most substantial update in decades.
Politicians were also reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which upheld the Supreme Court’s ruling that any state regulations requiring unusual procedures in order to practice Second Amendment guaranteed privileges were incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.
The judge’s ruling required updating of Massachusetts registration laws. The resulting state laws, according to gun rights organizations, went so far away as to be unconstitutional.
” Law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old members of the Commonwealth”, the parties told the court, “have an enumerated right to keep and bear frequent weapon for protection of self and family and for other lawful interests”.
Under H. B. 4885, yet,” Massachusetts has enacted, and Plaintiffs have authority to enforce, wide-ranging limits on that correct”, which in result “bans purchasing, possessing, or carrying any weapon or semiautomatic rifle anymore”.
According to the parties, an 18 to 20-year-old child is only permitted entry to a Firearms Identification Card and not the License To Carry, which is available to those over the age of 21. A Firearms Identification Card, the organizations write, “does never allow its holder to acquire, possess, or move any firearms orsemiautomatic firearms”.
They contend that this means that gun laws in the states “prohibit law-abiding people who are protected by the Second Amendment from possessing popular hands that are protected by the Second Amendment.”
The complaint names Heath J. Eldredge, Brewster’s Chief of Police, and Heath J. Eldredge, in his official capacity as the native licensing authority, as defendants, as well as Colonel Geoffrey Noble, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, Jamie Gagnon, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services.
The defendants in the complaint are Mack Escher, who has been identified in courtroom records as a resident of Brewster, an “adult over the age of 18 but under the age of 21, a citizen of the United States, and officially entitled under federal and state law to have and get firearms.”
According to the complaint,” Escher is a member of each of the corporate Claimant”, who are identified as the , Gun Owners ‘ Action League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and the NRA.
Escher, the groups tell the court, was able to apply his father’s automatic rifle for hunting in the past, but the change in the law means his already issued Firearms Identification Card doesn’t support that activity. Beyond that, they write, he’s unable to “purchase or possess any handgun or semiautomatic firearm, or to carry a handgun inpublic for self-defense”, despite the Supreme Court’s decisions indicating he should be able to do just that.
According to them,” Escher would obtain a license to carry and then acquire and carry a semiautomatic handgun for self-defense, and acquire and possess a semiautomatic rifle chambered in 5.56mm for hunting and target shooting,” in addition to the laws at issue in this case and Defendants ‘ enforcement of the same.
John Commerford, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement that the Bay State’s legislative response to the high court’s decision in , Bruen , represents “one of the most severe attacks on the right to keep and bear arms in our nation’s history”.
Commerford said,” Vending the rights of young adults is just our first step toward dismantling this unconstitutional law.”
___
© 2025 MediaNews Group, Inc
Distributed by , Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
