On May 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Georgia decided Stephens v. State of Georgia[1], affirming the constitutionality of the state's age-based restriction on the public carry of handguns. The Court held that Georgia’s statutory scheme, which generally prohibits individuals under 21 from carrying handguns in public unless they have military training, does not violate Article I, Section I, Paragraph VIII of the Georgia Constitution.[2] The decision reinforces the legislature’s authority to regulate the manner in which arms may be borne, as established by longstanding Georgia precedent.

Georgia law permits individuals aged 18 to 20 to possess long guns and carry them in public. They may also possess handguns on their own property, in their home, car, or place of business, and use both types of firearms for hunting and sport with the appropriate license. However, carrying a handgun in public is generally restricted to those 21 and older, unless the individual has received weapons training as part of military service. Use of a handgun for self-defense or defense of others is an absolute defense to any alleged violation of these regulations.[3]

Thomas Stephens, a 20-year-old, challenged the constitutionality of the age restriction after being denied a weapons carry license. He argued that the law violated his right to bear arms under the Georgia Constitution. The trial court dismissed his complaint, and Stephens appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.[4]

The court emphasized that state statutes are presumed constitutional, requiring challengers to show a “clear and palpable” conflict with the Georgia Constitution. The court must be “clearly satisfied” of a statute’s unconstitutionality to strike it down.[5]

Article I, Section I, Paragraph VIII of the Georgia Constitution provides: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.”[6] This language, first introduced in the 1860s, has been consistently interpreted by Georgia courts to allow the legislature broad authority to regulate the manner, times, places, and circumstances of bearing arms, so long as such regulations are not arbitrary, unreasonable, or amount to a total deprivation of the right.[7]

Stephens did not argue that the statute violated the right to bear arms as consistently constructed by Georgia courts but instead urged the court to adopt federal legal standards, such as strict scrutiny or the “history and tradition” test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.[8] The court declined, reaffirming that Georgia’s constitutional text expressly grants the legislature regulatory power and that federal standards are not controlling for unique state constitutional provisions.[9]

The court found that Stephens failed to provide a compelling argument or alternative interpretation of the constitutional provision’s original public meaning. As a result, the Court upheld the statutory age restriction.[10]

The decision in Stephens v. State of Georgia confirms the Georgia General Assembly’s authority to regulate the public carry of firearms, particularly as it pertains to age-based restrictions. The ruling underscores the importance of distinct state constitutional text and precedent when evaluating gun regulations. It also signals, in this instance, judicial reluctance to import federal constitutional standards where state law provides distinct language and history.

 

[1] Stephens v. State of Georgia, S25A0334 (Ga. May 28, 2025).

[2] Georgia Constitution of 1983, Article I, Section I, Paragraph VIII.

[3] Stephens, 25A0334, at 1.

[4] Stephens, S25A0334, at 8.

[5] Id. at 14.

[6] Ga. Const. art. I, § I, para. VIII.

[7] Stephens, S25A0334, at 11–12.

[8] New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).

[9] Stephens, S25A0334, at 19.

[10] Id.

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].