A new, pivotal New Jersey appellate case decided on December 11, 2025, State v. Lopez (A-1947-24) (2025), highlights one of the most contentious Second Amendment issues facing the residents of New Jersey. That question is whether New Jersey’s age-based handgun carry restrictions, specifically barring 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying handguns in public for self-defense, are constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the briefs filed, the defendant argued that federal precedent holds similar age restrictions unconstitutional and that New Jersey’s law fails the historical-tradition test required by modern Second Amendment caselaw. The appeal also raised procedural questions about whether challengers must first apply for permits before contesting the law and argues that the age limit itself lacks a historical analogue in the nation’s firearm-regulation tradition.
This case unfolds against a backdrop of intense legal battles over gun rights and regulation after the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). At the federal level, the Third Circuit has upheld many of New Jersey’s “sensitive places” gun bans, which limit where firearms can be carried, while striking down other elements like liability insurance mandates and certain fee provisions as inconsistent with historical tradition. Meanwhile, national litigation continues challenging laws that prohibit adults under 21 from acquiring, possessing, or carrying handguns, with advocacy groups arguing such age bans violate basic constitutional rights. Together, these cases reflect a broader clash in New Jersey and across the country between efforts to maintain some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and a reinvigorated judicial scrutiny that emphasizes individual rights to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
The court did not rule on the constitutionality of New Jersey’s age-based handgun carry restrictions under the Second Amendment. Instead, it held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the law because he had never applied for a handgun carry permit and thus could not mount a Second Amendment challenge to the statutes that effectively bar 18-to 20-year-olds from purchasing or publicly carrying handguns. Because of that procedural standing issue, the court did not reach or decide the substantive constitutional question of whether the age restriction itself violates the Second Amendment.