In Commonwealth v. Mikai Thomson (SJC-13856), decided October 20, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction of a then-20-year-old defendant for carrying a firearm without a license under G. L. c. 269, § 10(a). The case arose from a 2021 traffic stop in which officers found marijuana and, after the defendant fled, recovered a loaded handgun he discarded.
The defendant challenged the state’s longstanding rule barring persons under 21 from obtaining a license to carry, arguing it violated the Second Amendment both facially and as applied. The court, in an opinion by Justice Wolohojian, held that the restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Applying the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024), the court examined whether modern age limits are “relevantly similar” in “how” and “why” to founding-era rules. It surveyed militia laws, the infancy doctrine, and related common-law principles, concluding that legislatures historically restricted minors’ unsupervised access to firearms for safety reasons tied to immaturity, while still allowing supervised use (as in militia service). Parents or towns typically supplied arms for enrolled minors; minors themselves were not expected to acquire or control them independently. The current licensing scheme, the court found, follows the same protective logic and is therefore constitutional.
The defendant had never applied for a license. The court rejected standing for an as-applied challenge on that basis but allowed the facial challenge to proceed. Justices Kafker and Wendlandt concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing on standing and the description of current law but arguing that the historical analogy required further briefing and expert analysis under principles of party presentation; they would have remanded for that purpose.
The decision reinforces that age-based firearm restrictions remain permissible under the Second Amendment when they align with longstanding regulatory traditions aimed at public safety and the protection of those deemed too young for unsupervised possession.