Gun Rights and Judicial Restraint: The Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision on Minnesota’s Age Restriction

The U.S. Supreme Court’s April 2025 decision to decline reviewing Worth v. Jacobson marked a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over gun rights and state regulations. By refusing to revive Minnesota’s law requiring individuals to be 21 years old to carry handguns publicly, the Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that the age restriction violated the Second Amendment. This outcome, rooted in the Bruen and Rahimi precedents, underscores the Court’s emphasis on historical traditions and principles in constitutional interpretation—and opens the door to challenges against similar laws nationwide.

The Legal Context: Bruen, Rahimi, and Minnesota’s Defeat

The Minnesota case hinged on the Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires firearm regulations to align with historical traditions of gun ownership. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found no such precedent for age-based restrictions, even as Minnesota argued that 18–20-year-olds posed heightened risks of violence. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari left this reasoning intact, despite the state’s reliance on the 2024 Rahimi decision, which allowed modern laws to align with the “principles” of historical practices.

Critically, the Court’s inaction signals that age-based restrictions must still pass the Bruen test of historical justification. Over 30 states with similar laws now face potential legal challenges, creating uncertainty for policymakers and opportunities for gun rights advocates.

Market Implications: A Boost for Firearms Manufacturers?

The ruling could drive demand for firearms among 18–20-year-olds in states where age restrictions are overturned. Companies such as Sturm, Ruger & Co (RGR) and Smith & Wesson (SWHC), which cater to concealed carry markets, may see increased sales if other states follow Minnesota’s path.

Historically, gun stocks rise in environments of regulatory uncertainty or perceived threats to gun rights. For example, after Bruen was decided in 2022, RGR’s stock surged 18% in the following month, while SWHC’s rose 25%. If similar challenges succeed in other states, these gains could repeat. However, investors must also consider public safety concerns and potential legislative pushback, such as federal buyback programs or enhanced background checks.

The Broader Legislative Landscape

The Supreme Court’s decision has intensified a circuit split over age-based gun restrictions. While the Eighth and Fifth Circuits have struck down such laws, the Eleventh and Tenth Circuits have upheld them. This inconsistency increases the likelihood of future Supreme Court review—but only if a case with a clear split reaches the docket.

Meanwhile, states may face pressure to revise their laws. For instance, Florida’s 21-year-old purchase restriction survived a legal challenge in 2025 but could now face renewed scrutiny. Conversely, states like California, which previously had a 21-year-old age limit for public carry permits, may see renewed litigation after the Minnesota decision.

Conclusion: A Win for Gun Rights, a Challenge for Regulators

The Supreme Court’s refusal to reinstate Minnesota’s age restriction is a clear victory for Second Amendment advocates. With over 30 states now facing potential legal challenges, gun manufacturers like RGR and SWHC stand to benefit from increased demand. However, investors should monitor both judicial developments and legislative responses, such as federal gun control measures.

Key data points underscore the potential market impact:
- Firearm sales in 2022 (post-Bruen) reached $7.2 billion, up 12% from 2021.
- Gun ownership rates have risen to 43% of U.S. households, per Gallup, reflecting heightened demand.
- Stock performance: RGR and SWHC outperformed the S&P 500 by 22% and 35%, respectively, in the year following Bruen.

While the Minnesota case does not directly invalidate other states’ laws, it sets a precedent that could reshape the legal landscape for years. For investors, this means staying vigilant to regulatory shifts and the evolving interplay between the judiciary and gun rights. The era of Bruen and Rahimi is far from over—and neither is the debate over who should hold the trigger.