Commonwealth v. Thomson: Under-21 LTC Requirement Challenged at SJC

Commonwealth v. Mikai P. Thomson, SJC-13856, asks the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to review the under-21 License to Carry restriction. The SJC's official case notice frames two questions: whether the restriction is unconstitutional and whether Thomson may raise an as-applied challenge even though he did not apply for a firearms license.^[1]

Background

Section 131(d)(iv)^[2] bars issuance of an LTC to an applicant under age 21. Thomson's appellate filing challenges the use of that age restriction in connection with his conviction for carrying without a license.^[4]

Thomson argues that 18-to-20-year-olds are protected by the Second Amendment and that the age-21 restriction lacks historical support under the framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022).^[3]

The Constitutional Argument

Under Bruen, firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. Thomson's defense contends that there is no historical precedent from the founding era for prohibiting 18-to-20-year-olds from bearing arms. At the time of the Second Amendment's ratification, 18-year-olds were considered part of the militia and were expected to bear arms. The defense argues that the age-21 LTC restriction is a modern invention without historical analogue.

The official case notice does not decide either issue. It identifies the constitutional question and the threshold question created by Thomson not applying for a license.^[1]

Questions Before the SJC

• Whether Section 131(d)(iv), which prevents a person under age 21 from obtaining an LTC, is unconstitutional.
• Whether a person who did not apply for a firearms license may bring the stated as-applied challenge.

Potential Impact

A future decision could affect the LTC age threshold and prosecutions in which the defendant argues that the licensing restriction made lawful licensing unavailable. The court's final reasoning and remedy will determine the actual scope of any change.

Current status: No published SJC opinion in SJC-13856 was located during the August 21, 2026 official-source review.^[5] The statutory age-21 minimum remains in effect unless and until an official decision changes it.