Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has once again positioned herself as an enemy of constitutional gun rights, joining a coalition of anti-gun attorneys general in defending Pennsylvania’s unconstitutional ban on concealed carry for law-abiding adults under the age of 21. In doing so, Nessel is ignoring both historical precedent and recent court rulings that have struck down similar age-based restrictions.
The coalition argues that restricting concealed carry rights for 18-to-20-year-olds is necessary for public safety, but this argument falls flat when examined through an evidence-based lens. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty protected under the Second Amendment, and there is no historical basis for treating 18-year-old adults as second-class citizens when it comes to self-defense. In fact, courts are increasingly recognizing that such age-based restrictions are legally indefensible.
Court Rulings Reject Age-Based Gun Bans
Recent court decisions have reaffirmed that bans on young adults’ ability to carry firearms violate the Constitution. A federal appeals court recently ruled that Pennsylvania’s restriction on individuals under 21 carrying firearms in public during a state of emergency was unconstitutional. Similarly, a federal court ruled that the longstanding federal prohibition on handgun sales to adults under 21 violates the Second Amendment. These rulings align with the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held that any firearm regulation must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun ownership.
By siding with Pennsylvania’s unconstitutional ban, Nessel and her anti-gun allies are outright rejecting this legal precedent. Instead of respecting the judiciary’s findings, they are doubling down on restrictions that deny young adults the ability to defend themselves in an increasingly dangerous world.
The Fallacy of “Public Safety” Justifications
Gun control advocates like Nessel often claim that restricting firearms access for younger adults is necessary to prevent crime, but the facts tell a different story. There is no credible evidence that disarming 18-to-20-year-olds reduces violent crime. If anything, barring law-abiding young adults from carrying firearms only leaves them defenseless against criminals who have no regard for gun laws. The reality is that in most states, 18-year-olds can already serve in the military, enter legally binding contracts, and be tried as adults in the criminal justice system. If the government deems them mature enough for these responsibilities, why should they be stripped of their constitutional right to self-defense?
Even more hypocritically, Nessel and her fellow anti-gun officials support policies that make it easier for violent criminals to avoid serious punishment while simultaneously making it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. This is not about public safety—it is about control.
A Slippery Slope Toward Broader Gun Bans
The push to deny young adults their Second Amendment rights is not happening in a vacuum. Gun control activists have long used incremental restrictions to chip away at the right to bear arms. Today, they argue that 18-to-20-year-olds are too immature to carry firearms. What’s next? Raising the minimum age to 25? 30? The logic used to justify these bans could be extended indefinitely until the right to bear arms is functionally erased.
Nessel’s position is a stark reminder that gun control is never just about “reasonable regulations.” It is always about expanding government power at the expense of individual liberty. If she and her allies truly cared about reducing violent crime, they would focus on enforcing existing laws against criminals rather than infringing upon the rights of responsible gun owners.
Conclusion
Dana Nessel’s decision to join this misguided lawsuit is another example of politicians ignoring constitutional rights in pursuit of an anti-gun agenda. The courts have spoken—banning adults under 21 from carrying firearms is unconstitutional. Yet Nessel and her coalition refuse to acknowledge this legal reality, instead clinging to failed gun control policies that do nothing to enhance public safety.
Gun rights advocates must remain vigilant. The fight against age-based gun bans is not just about protecting the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds—it is about defending the Second Amendment for all Americans. If we allow politicians like Nessel to strip one group of their rights today, there is no telling who will be next.