US Supreme Court won't save Minnesota age restriction on carrying guns
By Andrew Chung
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Minnesota can no longer enforce its law barring people younger than 21 years old from obtaining a permit to carry a handgun in public after the U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to hear its appeal of a judicial decision deeming the age restriction a violation of constitutional protections for gun rights.
The justices let stand a 2024 ruling by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the restriction violated the rights of people ages 18, 19 and 20 to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, declining to hear the Democratic-governed state's appeal.
The case represented one of many challenges to gun restrictions at the state and federal levels that have emerged since the Supreme Court further widened gun rights in a landmark 2022 ruling recognizing for the first time a Second Amendment right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
Gun rights groups including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, as well as some of their members, challenged the state's age restriction in federal court.
Minnesota had been enforcing the age restriction while its appeals played out in court. The state called the restriction "modest" considering that youths already have significant access to guns in Minnesota - including no age restriction when supervised by a parent or guardian - and by age 14 they can possess guns on their property or while hunting without supervision.
More than 30 other states and the District of Columbia have similar restrictions on public carrying of firearms, reflecting concern that gun injuries are the leading cause of death among children and teens, Minnesota said in a court filing.
Courts "should not lightly set aside legislative attempts to address the increase in gun violence by young people," the state added.
A judge sided with the challengers in 2023. The 8th Circuit upheld that decision, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that announced a stringent test that required gun laws to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" in order to comply with the Second Amendment.
Minnesota did not present evidence of a suitable historical analogue, the 8th Circuit said. While a government may disarm those who pose a threat to the physical safety of others, 8th Circuit said, "Minnesota has failed to show that 18- to 20-year-olds pose such a threat."
The Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in the case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was one of three key decisions it has issued since 2008 that have broadened gun rights in a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence including frequent mass shootings. The United States has the world's highest gun ownership rate.
The court last year upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns, clarifying that the Bruen test is not inflexible and that modern gun restrictions do not require a "historical twin" in order to be lawful.
The court on April 7 turned away a challenge to gun restrictions that New York adopted after the Bruen ruling.
In another gun-related case, the court on March 26 upheld a federal regulation targeting largely untraceable "ghost guns," though that ruling did not center on Second Amendment issues.
Last year, the court upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns in a Second Amendment-related challenge but rejected a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns in a case not focusing on Second Amendment rights.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

21 minutes ago
Leaders of ‘orgasmic meditation' women's wellness company OneTaste convicted in forced labor trial
NEW YORK -- The leaders of a sex-focused women's wellness company that promoted 'orgasmic meditation' have been convicted of federal forced labor charges. A Brooklyn jury on Monday found Nicole Daedone, founder of OneTaste Inc., and Rachel Cherwitz, the California-based company's former sales director, guilty after deliberating for less than two days following a five-week trial. The two each face up to 20 years in prison when sentenced later. Prosecutors had argued the two women ran a yearslong scheme that groomed adherents — many of them victims of sexual trauma — to do their bidding. They said Daedone, 57, of New York, and Cherwitz, 44, of California, used economic, sexual and psychological abuse, intimidation and indoctrination to force OneTaste members into sexual acts they found uncomfortable or repulsive, such as having sex with prospective investors or clients. The two told followers the questionable acts were necessary in order to obtain 'freedom' and 'enlightenment' and demonstrate their commitment to the organization's principles. Prosecutors said OneTaste leaders also didn't pay promised earnings to the members-turned-workers and even forced some of them to take out new credit cards to continue taking the company's courses. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nina Gupta, in her closing statement last week, said the defendants 'built a business on the backs' of victims who 'gave everything' to them, including 'their money, their time, their bodies, their dignity, and ultimately their sanity.' 'The jury's verdict has unmasked Daedone and Cherwitz for who they truly are: grifters who preyed on vulnerable victims by making empty promises of sexual empowerment and wellness only to manipulate them into performing labor and services for the defendants' benefit,' said Joseph Nocella, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Daedone's defense team cast her as a 'ceiling-shattering feminist entrepreneur' who created a unique business around women's sexuality and empowerment. Cherwitz's lawyer, Celia Cohen, argued that the witnesses who testified weren't forced to do anything. When they didn't like the organization anymore or wanted to try other things, she said, they simply left. 'No matter what you think about OneTaste and what they were doing, they chose it. They knew what it was about,' she said in her closing statement last week. 'The fact they are regretting the actions that they took when they were younger is not evidence of a crime.' Lawyers for the defendants said their clients maintain their innocence and intend to appeal. 'We are deeply disappointed in today's verdict," the lawyers said in a statement Monday. "This case raised numerous novel and complex legal issues that will require review by the Second Circuit.' Daedone co-founded OneTaste in San Francisco in 2004 as a sort of self-help commune that viewed female orgasms as key to sexual and psychological wellness and interpersonal connection. A centerpiece was 'orgasmic meditation,' or 'OM,' which was carried out by men manually stimulating women in a group setting. The company enjoyed glowing media coverage in the 2010s and quickly opened outposts from Los Angeles to London. Portrayed as a cutting-edge enterprise that prioritized women's sexual pleasure, it generated revenue by providing courses, coaching, OM events, and other sexual practices for a fee. Daedone sold her stake in the company in 2017 for $12 million — a year before OneTaste's marketing and labor practices came under scrutiny. The company's current owners, who have rebranded it the Institute of OM Foundation, have said its work has been misconstrued and the charges against its former executives were unjustified.

an hour ago
GOP House Homeland chairman Green to retire from Congress early
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- The House Homeland Security Committee's chairman, Republican Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, announced Monday that he will retire from Congress once the House votes again on the sprawling tax and budget policy bill backed by President Donald Trump. In a statement, Green said he was offered a private sector opportunity that was 'that was too exciting to pass up' so he informed House Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday of his retirement plans. The move comes more than a year after Green announced he wouldn't run again in 2024, but changed his mind when fellow Republicans implored him to stick around. Green's next election would have been in 2026. Green voted for Trump's sweeping legislation when it passed the House last month. The bill is now in the Senate's hands, and would need to return to the House for agreement on any changes. Trump wants the bill on his desk for his signature by July 4. Green's delayed departure could help with the GOP's narrow margins in the House. Republican leaders need every vote they can get on their big tax bill, which they managed to pass last month by a single vote and will have to pass again once changes are made in the Senate. They now have a 220-212 majority. 'It was the honor of a lifetime to represent the people of Tennessee in Congress," Green said. "They asked me to deliver on the conservative values and principles we all hold dear, and I did my level best to do so.' Green's seat will be decided in a special election. The timing will depend on when he leaves office. Ahead of his 2024 reelection, Green had announced that February 2024 he would not run again. The decision was revealed a day after the impeachment of then-President Joe Biden's Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. But many fellow Republicans had called on him to reconsider, and he jumped back into the running just two weeks later. He was unopposed in the Republican primary and then defeated Democrat Megan Barry — the former Nashville mayor who resigned in 2018 in scandal — by more than 21 percentage points in November 2024. Green, 60, has served since 2019 in the 7th Congressional District, which was redrawn in 2022 to include a significant portion of Nashville. The city was carved up three ways in the 2022 redistricting so Republicans could flip a Democratic district in Congress that had covered Music City, which they successfully did. Green previously served as an Army surgeon and in the state Senate and is from Montgomery County. Green flirted running for governor in 2017, but suspended his campaign after he was nominated by former President Donald Trump to become the Army secretary. He later withdrew his nomination due to criticism over his remarks about Muslims and LGBTQ+ Americans.

an hour ago
Trump heads to Fort Bragg while facing criticism for deploying military at Los Angeles protests
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump plans to speak at Fort Bragg on Tuesday to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army as he deploys the military in an attempt to quiet immigration protests in Los Angeles. Fort Bragg, located near Fayetteville, North Carolina, serves as headquarters for U.S. Army Special Operations Command. Highly trained units like the Green Berets and the Rangers are based there. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll will also be at Tuesday's event, along with service members, veterans and their families. Trump has promoted the Army's anniversary as a reason to hold a military parade in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, which is also his 79th birthday. Tanks and other vehicles will roll down city streets in a reminder of how the Republican president is reshaping the armed forces after returning to the White House this year. Trump, who sees the military as a critical tool for domestic goals, has used the recent protests in Los Angeles as an opportunity to deploy the National Guard and U.S. Marines to quell disturbances that began as protests over immigration raids. Trump has authorized the deployment of 4,000 National Guard soldiers to the city over the objections of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. About 700 Marines were also due to formally deploy to Los Angeles. California sued Trump over the deployment, with the state attorney general arguing that the president had 'trampled' the state's sovereignty. California leaders accused Trump of fanning protesters' anger, leading crowds to block off a major freeway and set self-driving cars on fire. 'We're gonna have troops everywhere," Trump said over the weekend. 'We're not going to let this happen to our country.' Fort Bragg has been in the middle of a cultural tug-of-war over the military. It was named after a Confederate general, then renamed to Fort Liberty two years ago. Hegseth brought back the Bragg name, but said it was being used to honor an Army paratrooper who served in World War II.