The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) just dropped a bombshell reply brief in their lawsuit against Massachusetts’ draconian ban on 18-20 year olds buying handguns—a restriction that’s as arbitrary as it is unconstitutional. Filed in support of their challenge, the brief hammers home the Bruen test’s core demand: show me the history. SAF meticulously argues there’s zero historical tradition for stripping young adults of their Second Amendment rights just because they’ve hit the ripe old age of 18 but not yet blown out 21 candles. Drawing from Founding-era records, they spotlight how 18-year-olds were enlisting in militias, bearing arms in defense of the nation, and treated as full-fledged adults under the law—no ageist carve-outs in sight. This isn’t just legalese; it’s a direct shot at the post-Bruen scramble by gun-grabber states to invent sensitive places and age gates out of thin air.

Context matters here, and Massachusetts’ ban reeks of the same nanny-state overreach that’s crumbling nationwide. Remember Rahimi? The Supreme Court upheld disarming domestic abusers with actual historical analogs, but age-based blanket bans? Crickets from the 18th and 19th centuries. SAF’s filing builds on wins like the Fifth Circuit’s Reese v. ATF smackdown, where courts rejected arbitrary 21+ shotgun restrictions for the same reason: young adults are adults, period. Politically, this lands amid a red wave of pro-2A legislation—think Florida’s permitless carry for 21+ expanding to 18+ pushes elsewhere—exposing blue-state holdouts like Mass as outliers clinging to failed experiments.

For the 2A community, the implications are electric: a win here could torch age restrictions across the board, from handguns to assault weapons, affirming that 18 means adult in the eyes of the Founders. It pressures SCOTUS to clarify Bruen’s history and tradition for good, starving hoplophobes of their favorite dodge. Stay locked in—this brief isn’t just paper; it’s firepower for the fight ahead. Eyes on the docket, patriots.