Analysis Summary:

The article appears mostly accurate. The core claim about the Supreme Court rejecting Minnesota's appeal is likely true, although the provided sources don't directly confirm this specific case. There's a slight bias towards gun control, evident in the framing and implied support for the ban.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Minnesota asking to revive the state’s ban on gun-carry permits for young adults.
  • Verification Source #1: Fails to cover this specific case, but mentions the Second Amendment and gun possession laws.
  • Verification Source #2: Mentions the Attorney General's appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the Minnesota gun safety law. This supports the claim that Minnesota appealed.
  • Verification Source #3: Fails to cover this specific case, but discusses minimum age laws for gun purchases.
  • Verification Source #4: Fails to cover this specific case, but discusses sentencing for young adults.
  • Verification Source #5: Fails to cover this specific case, but discusses gun control measures.
  • Internal Knowledge:* While none of the sources *directly* confirm the Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal, the combination of Verification Source #2 confirming the appeal and the article's claim makes it likely to be accurate. Without a direct confirmation from the Supreme Court's website or a news report explicitly stating the rejection, a perfect accuracy score isn't warranted.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Verification Source #2: Supports the claim that Minnesota appealed the decision striking down the gun safety law.
• The lack of direct confirmation from the Supreme Court's website (or a news report explicitly stating the rejection) is a limitation.
• The article's framing suggests a pro-gun control stance, implying the ban was a positive measure. This is a subjective assessment based on the overall tone.