20-year-old challenges state’s handgun carry denial, pressing legal boundaries on gun rights and constitutional interpretation
ATLANTA – A legal battle over the rights of young adults to carry handguns in Georgia has landed in the state’s highest court — and could redraw the contours of gun law for an entire generation.
On Tuesday, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that pits 20-year-old Thomas Stephens against longstanding restrictions embedded in Georgia’s gun licensing system. Denied a concealed carry license in Lumpkin County because he was under 21, Stephens sued — asserting that the age restriction infringes on his constitutional rights under both the U.S. and Georgia constitutions.
What’s at stake is more than one man’s license application. The ruling could ripple across state law, setting a precedent on whether age-based restrictions for gun carry can stand in an era where the definition of “the right to bear arms” is once again being tested.
The Heart of the Argument
Stephens’ legal team argues that the state’s denial violates the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual’s right “to keep and bear Arms.” While that right has long been interpreted to allow reasonable regulation, the crux of this case lies in how age-based limits intersect with personal liberty — and whether Georgia’s own constitution grants broader authority to legislate such restrictions.
“There is no explicit carve-out in the Second Amendment that strips 18- to 20-year-olds of their rights,” Stephens’ lawyer told the justices. “This is a matter of individual liberty, and blanket age bans are an overreach.”
But the state’s attorneys see it differently — firmly grounding their argument in historical precedent and Georgia’s own legal architecture.
Zachary A. Mullinax, representing Attorney General Chris Carr’s office, defended the existing law by citing the state’s constitutional language, which empowers the legislature to “prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.”
“This restriction isn’t new,” Mullinax argued. “It dates back nearly two centuries, grounded in the idea that individuals under 21 weren’t eligible for militia service and, by extension, public carry rights.”
A Clash of Eras: Originalism vs Modern Liberties
At the heart of the case is a philosophical and judicial divide.
The state leans on originalism — a legal doctrine that interprets constitutional language based on its understanding at the time it was written. Mullinax urged the court to follow the 180 years of precedent that have consistently excluded individuals under 21 from full gun carry privileges.
But Stephens’ legal team counters with a more liberty-forward interpretation — arguing that past laws reflected outdated norms and discriminatory assumptions. “The legal lens has changed,” the attorney said, referencing recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that apply strict scrutiny when evaluating restrictions on constitutional rights.
National Implications?
This Georgia case comes as courts across the U.S. grapple with the post-Bruen landscape — referring to the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision that upended decades of precedent by requiring governments to justify firearm restrictions with historical analogues from the 18th and 19th centuries.
That decision opened the door to a new wave of challenges to gun laws, particularly age restrictions, background checks, and permit requirements.
If Georgia’s high court rules in favor of Stephens, it could embolden similar challenges nationwide, particularly in conservative-leaning states. Conversely, a ruling upholding the age limit would reinforce the state’s authority to define the boundaries of gun ownership through age and license criteria.
Generational Tension and Public Safety Concerns
The case also reflects a growing tension between expanding gun rights and concerns about public safety — especially given recent national spikes in youth-involved gun violence.
Critics of Stephens’ position warn that rolling back age-based restrictions could lead to more firearms in the hands of young people during critical transitional years.
“Young adults still face impulse-control issues, and their brains are still developing,” said Rachel Nguyen, a public safety advocate with the Georgia Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. “We’re not just talking about abstract rights — we’re talking about life-and-death consequences.”
Supporters, meanwhile, argue that 18-year-olds are old enough to serve in the military, vote, and be tried as adults — and should therefore not be denied the constitutional right to carry a weapon for self-defense.
What’s Next?
The Georgia Supreme Court is expected to rule in the coming months. Legal analysts say the case is finely balanced — with the court likely to issue a narrowly tailored ruling rather than a sweeping doctrinal overhaul.
| Key Issues in the Case | Stephens’ Argument | State’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| Age-based restriction | Unconstitutional age discrimination under 2nd Amendment | Consistent with historic norms; tied to militia service |
| Georgia Constitution interpretation | Does not allow legislature to completely bar carry rights | Empowers legislature to define how arms may be borne |
| Historical precedent | Outdated and not relevant post-Bruen | Nearly 200 years of continuous legal enforcement |
| Public safety concerns | Not relevant to rights-based inquiry | Young adults more prone to misuse — restrictions justified |
If the court rules in Stephens’ favor, lawmakers may face pressure to amend current statutes — or craft new systems that balance public safety with constitutional compliance.
For now, Stephens remains unable to legally carry a handgun in public. But depending on the court’s decision, he may soon become the face of a major shift in Georgia’s — and possibly the nation’s — gun law landscape.
