New Hampshire gun owners got a message from Massachusetts’ highest court:
“Constitutional carry” doesn’t count across the state line.
That was the message delivered Tuesday by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in a landmark ruling overturning a lower court’s original finding that the commonwealth unlawfully imposes its strict gun laws on non-residents traveling within the Bay State’s borders.
At the heart of Tuesday’s ruling was the timing of Massachusetts’ legislative response to the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. That landmark ruling declared New York’s requirement that conceal-carry permit applicants demonstrate a “proper cause” was unconstitutional. The court held that this discretionary standard violated the right to keep and bear arms by imposing an overly restrictive burden on law-abiding citizens.
As a result, Massachusetts’ restrictive gun laws are now being called into question.
In the two unrelated cases, Granite Staters Dean Donnell and Philip Marquis were both involved in minor accidents while driving in Massachusetts. When police discovered they had guns in their cars — a fact that would be both legal and unremarkable in New Hampshire — Massachusetts chose to prosecute them for illegal gun possession.
The Massachusetts SJC ruled on two joint lower court decisions, both of which cited Bruen in determining that the commonwealth acted unconstitutionally.
The SJC upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss in the first case – Commonwealth v Donnell – because the state had yet to update its gun laws in the wake of the Bruen decision when the arrest was made.
But in the second case, Commonwealth v Marquis, the SJC upheld the state’s right to prosecute the Granite State gun owner.
“The Commonwealth’s non-resident firearm licensing scheme is facially consistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” the ruling stated. “Because that scheme does not penalize nonresidents’ right to travel, and because differences in how that scheme operates for residents versus nonresidents are rationally related to legitimate State interests, the Commonwealth’s non-resident firearm licensing scheme is also facially consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment rights to travel and to equal protection.”
New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella, who filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the New Hampshire defendants in both cases, disagreed.
“The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision on non-resident firearm licenses oversteps and disregards the rights of law-abiding citizens, particularly those from states like New Hampshire where gun rights are respected,” Formella said in a statement. “The SJC’s ruling undermines the core principles of the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms for all Americans, regardless of state residence.
“We will continue fighting to protect the rights of New Hampshire residents and oppose any efforts to limit those rights through overly restrictive licensing schemes.”
New Hampshire law provides lawful gun owners with the right to carry firearms open or concealed without requiring a carrying license. Massachusetts, however, refuses to recognize gun licenses possessed by residents from other states and boasts strict laws requiring out-of-state visitors to apply for nonresident temporary licenses, a costly process that can take up to three months.
The SJC ruled Massachusetts’ post-Bruen gun licensing laws are in line with the constitution.
“We hold that both the “why” of that (Bruen) scheme — restricting access to firearms by demonstrably dangerous persons — and the “how” of that scheme — a “shall issue” licensing regime — are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the SJC’s decision stated.
Former state Rep. JR Hoell (R-Dunbarton), who serves on the board of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, said Tuesday’s ruling is unconstitutional and a violation of the Second Amendment. He cited a friend-of-the-court brief submitted by Jay Simkin, a federally licensed Nashua-based firearms dealer.
“His careful research shows the only requirements at the time of the constitution were for individuals to possess firearms and not prohibitions against the ownership,” Hoell said.
Simkin’s brief noted he frequently does business in Massachusetts and owns a temporary non-resident license to carry.
“Massachusetts lawmakers’ generations-long effort – to promote public safety by restricting firearms and firearm owners – has been ineffective, at best,” Simkin wrote. “Bruen thus makes unconstitutional – and so uproots – Massachusetts’ thickets of laws restricting firearms and firearm owners. The District Court’s decisions recognize a long-denied truth: ‘gun control’ laws, plainly unconstitutional, have not enhanced public safety.”
The Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire, a pro-Second Amendment organization, also criticized the Massachusetts ruling. It accused Massachusetts of prioritizing the rights of individuals entering the country illegally over the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
“Massachusetts is a sanctuary state for criminals,” the group said in a statement provided to NHJournal. “The state’s gun control laws disarm the law-abiding and prevent them from protecting themselves from criminals for simply crossing state lines.
“Our fundamental human right to self defense does not cease to exist where one state line ends and another begins. This is especially ironic during women’s history month given Massachusetts legislators’ distinct hatred for women’s actual rights such as the 2nd Amendment.”
Hoell added he expects the Massachusetts ruling will be challenged.
“It is my hope that the Marquis case is appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
