- Free Consultation: 617.936.0201 Call us in Boston or Quincy
The Age-21 License to Carry Requirement After Bruen: Commonwealth v. Thomson
By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center
October 26, 2026
On October 20, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided Commonwealth v. Thomson, SJC-13856, and upheld the state requirement that a person be at least twenty-one years old to obtain a license to carry a firearm. Mikai Thomson was twenty years old when the police charged him, and he had never applied for a license to carry. A jury convicted him of carrying a firearm without a license under G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a).
Thomson argued that the age-21 requirement violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the requirement is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and affirmed the conviction. This article explains the licensing requirement, the constitutional challenge, and what the decision means for a young adult charged under § 10 (a).
What Massachusetts Law Requires
Massachusetts makes it a crime to carry or possess a firearm without a license, unless a statute exempts the conduct. G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a). A conviction under § 10 (a) is a felony. A person who wants to carry a firearm must obtain a license to carry from a licensing authority, and the firearm licensing statute, G. L. c. 140, § 131 (d), does not allow a person under twenty-one years old to obtain one. A person under twenty-one therefore cannot carry a firearm lawfully outside the narrow settings that the statutes exempt.
Thomson did not hold a license to carry and had never applied for one. Because he was twenty years old at the time, the licensing statute would not have allowed him to obtain a license even if he had applied. He did not challenge a separate assault and battery conviction, so the Supreme Judicial Court addressed only the firearm conviction.
The Second Amendment Challenge and the Bruen Test
Thomson argued that the age-21 licensing requirement violates the Second Amendment, both on its face and as applied to him. He relied on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), in which the United States Supreme Court held that a firearm regulation is constitutional only where the government shows that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Under that test, a court first asks whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct. Where it does, the government must then identify historical firearm regulations that are relevantly similar to the challenged law. The Supreme Judicial Court assumed, without deciding, that people under twenty-one are among “the people” the Second Amendment protects, and moved to the historical question.
What the Supreme Judicial Court Decided
The Supreme Judicial Court held that the age-21 licensing requirement is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and affirmed Thomson’s conviction under G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a). The court concluded that restricting the unsupervised possession of firearms by people considered too young to handle them safely fits a long tradition of regulating who may possess firearms. Because the requirement is consistent with that tradition, the court held that it does not violate the Second Amendment.
The court assumed that people under twenty-one fall within the Second Amendment’s protected class, so the decision does not hold that young adults have no Second Amendment rights. The decision instead holds that the age-21 licensing requirement survives the historical-tradition test even if those young adults are protected.
What the Decision Means for a Young Adult Charged Under Section 10(a)
A person under twenty-one who is charged under G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a) cannot defeat the charge by arguing that the age-21 licensing requirement is unconstitutional, because the Supreme Judicial Court has upheld that requirement. The defense of a § 10 (a) charge instead depends on the facts and the police conduct in the particular case. A defendant can challenge the stop, the search, and the seizure that produced the firearm, can contest whether the Commonwealth has proved that the item meets the statutory definition of a firearm, and can contest whether the Commonwealth has proved knowing possession.
The absence of a license to carry is an element of the offense that, like every element, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. A young adult charged under § 10 (a) should have counsel review how the police found the firearm and whether the Commonwealth can prove each element. Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995 and defends firearm charges in the District Court, the Boston Municipal Court, and the Superior Court.
Key Takeaways
- In Commonwealth v. Thomson, SJC-13856 (Oct. 20, 2026), the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the requirement that a person be at least twenty-one years old to obtain a license to carry a firearm.
- Massachusetts makes carrying a firearm without a license a felony under G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a), and the licensing statute, G. L. c. 140, § 131 (d), does not allow a person under twenty-one to obtain a license to carry.
- The court applied the historical-tradition test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and held that the age-21 requirement is consistent with that tradition.
- The court assumed, without deciding, that people under twenty-one are among “the people” the Second Amendment protects, so the decision does not deny young adults Second Amendment rights.
- A person under twenty-one charged under § 10 (a) cannot defeat the charge by attacking the age-21 requirement, so the defense depends on the stop, the search, and whether the Commonwealth can prove each element.
Related Serpa Law Office resources
We Accept the Following Payment Solutions
