Counterpoint: Star Tribune Editorial Board gets it wrong on gun restrictions for 18- to 20-year-olds

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

As the chairman of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, I stand firmly against the recent editorial advocating for age-based restrictions on the constitutional right of peaceable 18- to 20-year-old young adults to carry firearms for self-defense in Minnesota (“Isn’t it better to have this gun rule?” July 24). Our organization, along with our national partners on behalf of our young adult members, brought the lawsuit discussed in the editorial.

The position taken by the Star Tribune Editorial Board undermines both constitutional rights and practical considerations. It reminds us of the claim many made when the permit-to-carry law was passed in 2003 that “blood would run in the streets” with shootings by permit holders — a claim repeatedly proved to be false.

Here are five key reasons why this viewpoint deserves robust opposition from Minnesotans.

Second Amendment rights

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, as upheld in several recent cases by the U.S. Supreme Court.

On appeal, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison argued that 18- to 20-year-old young adults in Minnesota were not “the people” referenced in the Constitution and attempted to justify this restriction by referencing 19th-century firearm restrictions on “Catholics, Native Americans, slaves,” among others. His arguments were constitutionally ridiculous and unsound.

The Star Tribune’s editorial did not include a constitutional analysis and inaccurately compared the right to keep and bear arms with the regulation of purchasing cigarettes and alcohol, which are not rights protected by the Constitution.

Equal treatment under the law

Eighteen-year-olds are granted numerous adult responsibilities and rights, from voting to military service. It is contradictory and unjust to impose age-based restrictions on their right to carry handguns. This inconsistency suggests a lack of trust in their maturity and judgment, which contradicts the legal responsibilities already entrusted to them.

Public safety and self-defense

Efficacy of restrictions

There is scant evidence to suggest that age-based restrictions on carrying handguns lead to a significant reduction in crime. Studies have shown that lawful gun ownership can act as a deterrent to criminal activity. The Editorial Board and Ellison offer no data supporting their proposed restrictions.

The data show the opposite of Ellison’s claim. When looking at Minnesota’s Uniform Crime Report for 2022, the age group including 18- to 20-year-olds commits fewer violent crimes than those older.

Even if there were such data that supported the attorney general’s claim, it would be outweighed by their right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.

Precedent and legal consistency

•••

The federal appeals court’s decision to overturn Minnesota’s age restriction on carrying handguns publicly is a positive move rooted in constitutional principles. It recognizes the importance of protecting individual rights, including those of young adults. Our organization fully supports this outcome.

The Star Tribune editorial fails to consider the broader implications of age-based handgun restrictions. We must uphold the Second Amendment rights of all adults, including 18- to 20-year-olds.

The state of Minnesota should save taxpayers further legal fees by accepting the decision and repealing other unconstitutional laws that violate the Second Amendment. Otherwise, we’ll continue to be forced to beat Keith Ellison and the Legislature in federal court.