Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Defense counsel tells court Massachusetts age‑based gun‑license ban is unconstitutional; commonwealth argues no standing and historical basis
Summary
At oral argument in Commonwealth v. Thompson, defense counsel Elizabeth Ozar urged the court to vacate a conviction that relied on a statute categorically barring people ages 18–20 from handgun licenses; the Commonwealth's Ian McLean countered that Thompson lacks standing because he never applied and that historical analogs support the restriction. The court pressed both sides on precedents, remand, and the Bruen historical‑analogy test. Decision pending.
An attorney for the defendant told the Supreme Judicial Court that a Massachusetts provision barring persons ages 18–20 from obtaining a handgun license is unconstitutional and that her client, whose conviction relied on the age‑based ineligibility, has standing to challenge it despite never applying for a license.
Elizabeth Ozar argued that the Commonwealth put the age‑based ineligibility at the center of its prosecution and jury instruction, so the statute inflicted a direct, individualized harm that permits an as‑applied challenge. She told the court the Commonwealth offered no evidence at trial that Mr. Thompson was ineligible for a license for any reason other than age and that prior precedents leave room for a futility doctrine allowing a challenge when applying would have been futile or impossible.
The nut of the…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
