Worth v. Harrington

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
• Writing for the Court: Katherine Menendez, United States District Judge
• Citation: Worth v. Harrington, 666 F.Supp.3d 902 (D. Minn. 2023)
• Docket Number: Case No. 21-cv-1348 (KMM/LIB)
• Decision Date: 31 March 2023
• Parties: Kristin WORTH, Austin Dye, Axel Anderson, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. John HARRINGTON, in his official capacity Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Don Lorge, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Mille Lacs County, Minnesota; Troy Wolbersen, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Douglas County, Minnesota; and Dan Starry, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Washington County, Minnesota, Defendants.

666 F.Supp.3d 902

Kristin WORTH, Austin Dye, Axel Anderson, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus,Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. John HARRINGTON, in his official capacityCommissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; Don Lorge,in his official capacity as Sheriff of Mille Lacs County, Minnesota;Troy Wolbersen, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Douglas County,Minnesota; and Dan Starry, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Washington County, Minnesota, Defendants.

Case No. 21-cv-1348 (KMM/LIB)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Signed March 31, 2023

Blair W. Nelson, Blair W. Nelson, Ltd., Bemidji, MN, David H. Thompson, Pro Hac Vice, Peter A. Patterson, Pro Hac Vice, William V. Bergstrom, Pro Hac Vice, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Amanda E. Prutzman, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN, for Defendant John Harrington.

ORDER

Katherine Menendez, United States District Judge

The State of Minnesota requires a person to obtain a permit to lawfully carry a handgun in public, but does not issue permits to anyone under the age of twenty-one. The Plaintiffs, who are 18-to-20-year-old individuals and firearms advocacy organizations with members in that age range, argue that the minimum age requirement in Minnesota's permit-to-carry law violates their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court's recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022), compels the conclusion that Minnesota's permitting age restriction is unconstitutional, and Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

I. Background

The Minnesota Legislature enacted the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003 "recognize[ing] and declar[ing] that the second amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms," while also enacting statutory provisions considered "to be necessary to accomplish compelling state interests in regulation of those rights." Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 22. As part of that Act, Minnesota requires persons who are not law enforcement officers to obtain a "permit to carry [a] pistol" in a public place. Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1a.¹ Carrying a pistol in public without a permit is a gross misdemeanor, and a conviction for a second or subsequent offense is a felony. Id.

To obtain such a permit, the statute requires a person to submit an application to the sheriff in their county of residence, and the sheriff "must issue a permit to an applicant if the person" satisfies enumerated criteria. Id. § 624.714, subd. 2(a)-(b). The condition at issue in this case is that the applicant must be "at least 21 years old." Id. § 624.714, subd. 2(b)(2).² In addition to completing the application and meeting the age requirement, a person must also have "training in the safe use of a pistol" within a year of the application and not be prohibited from possessing a firearm by state or federal law. Id. §§ 624.714, subd 2a, and subd. 2(b)(1), (3), and (4).³

Kristin Worth, Austin Dye, and Axel Anderson, the individual Plaintiffs in this case, are older than 18, but under the age of 21.⁴ Except for failing to meet the age requirement, it appears they are otherwise eligible to receive a permit to carry a pistol in Minnesota. They wish to carry pistols for self defense, but don't because they do not want to be subject to arrest or prosecution for violating the permitting requirement. If they could obtain a permit, they state that they would take the required safety training course and submit applications to their respective County Sheriffs. [Doc. 43-2; Doc. 43-3; Doc. 43-4].

The other Plaintiffs are gun-rights advocacy organizations: the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus ("MGOC"), the Second Amendment Foundation ("SAF"), and the Firearms Policy Coalition ("FPC"). Each of the individual Plaintiffs is a member of all three of these organizations. MGOC has thousands of members in Minnesota, some of whom are over 18, but under the age of 21, and "who would exercise their right to bear arms and acquire carry licenses if it were not for" the age requirement in Minn. Stat. § 624.714. [Doc. 43-5 ¶¶ 4, 6]. Similarly, SAF and FPC have members between the ages of 18 and 21 who would obtain permits and publicly carry pistols in Minnesota if they were legally allowed to do so. [Doc. 43-6 ¶¶ 3-7; Doc. 43-7 ¶¶ 3-7].

Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' "active enforcement" of the permitting and age requirements bar them from obtaining a permit to carry handguns in public. [Compl. ¶¶ 43-44, 56-57, 69-70]. One of those Defendants is John Harrington, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.⁵ The statutory scheme tasks the Commissioner with oversight and other responsibilities related to permitting. For example, the Commissioner is required by statute to adopt statewide standards governing the form and contents of all applications for carry permits. Minn. Stat. § 624.7151. The Commissioner must also make the forms for new and renewal applications available on the internet. Id. § 624.714, subd. 3(h). Further, the Commissioner is required to maintain a database of persons authorized to carry pistols. Id. § 624.714, subd. 15(a). The Commissioner must keep track of other states with laws governing the issuance of permits to carry weapons that differ from Minnesota's permit-to-carry law, and execute reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions whose carry permits are recognized in Minnesota. Id. § 624.714, subd. 16(a), (d). Finally, the Commissioner receives set amounts from the fees for new and renewal applications that are paid to the individual county sheriffs who process the applications. Id. § 624.714, subd. 3(f).

Defendant Don Lorge is the Sheriff of Mille Lacs County, where Ms. Worth resides; Dan Starry is the Sheriff of Washington County, where Mr. Dye resides; and Troy Wolbersen is the Sheriff of Douglas County, where Mr. Anderson resides (collectively "the Sheriffs"). As noted, applications for permits to carry must be made to the sheriff in the county where a person resides. Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 2(a). And a sheriff who receives an application "must issue a permit" if an applicant satisfies the statutory criteria. Id. § 624.714, subd. 2(b). Each of the Sheriffs explains that his respective County played no role in the State's enactment of the permit-to-carry law and that he strictly follows the requirements of the statute. Moreover, the Sheriffs declare that they have never received applications from the individual Plaintiffs who reside within their Counties, and indeed, have never received an application for a permit to carry by a person under the age of 21. [Doc. 55; Doc. 56; Doc. 57].

II. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Dowden v. Cornerstone Nat'l Ins. Co., 11 F.4th 866, 872 (8th Cir. 2021). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draws reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Grant v. City of Blytheville, 841 F.3d 767, 770 (8th Cir. 2016).

III. Plaintiffs' Motion

Plaintiffs seek summary judgment in their favor on their claim that the age requirement in Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 2, violates their Second Amendment rights.⁶ In light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Bruen, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment.

A. Second Amendment Framework

The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II. In two cases decided over a decade ago, the Supreme Court held that "the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense." Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2122 (citing District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010)). And in Bruen last year, the Court held "that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home." Id.

In the decade of litigation following Heller, Courts of Appeals around the country adopted a variety of balancing tests which weighed a government's interest in a particular gun control measure against the extent and nature of that law's infringement of Second Amendment rights. Id. at 2126-27 (describing the tests in several circuits). Indeed, every Circuit Court to address the issue prior to Bruen gave weight in the analysis to the societal goals served by the regulation at issue. United States v. Jackson, Crim. No. ELH-22-141, 2023 WL 2499856, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2023) (discussing federal appellate courts uniform approach between Heller and Bruen). But Bruen rejected any "two-step," "means-end scrutiny" entirely. 142 S. Ct. at 2125-26. Instead, the Court adopted the following test for evaluating whether a government regulation of firearms is permissible:

[W]e hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that

...