BOSTON A 25-state coalition is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Massachusetts policy of not recognizing concealed carry permits issued by other states. The filing centers on the case of Philip Marquis, a New Hampshire resident who became entangled in Massachusetts licensing rules after entering the Bay State. Regional reporting describes Marquis situation as arising from a cross-border incident connected to a motor-vehicle crash. Once authorities determined that he did not hold a Massachusetts license to carry, he faced charges despite having a permit recognized at home. The coalitions request follows a March decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that kept the Commonwealths hard line against out-of-state permit recognition intact. As covered, the states argue that the lack of reciprocity traps otherwise lawful carriers who cross an invisible boundary and, in moments, shift from compliance to criminal exposure. Their brief frames the issue as both legal and practical, asserting that residents who are vetted and licensed elsewhere face an immediate, punitive shift in status the moment they step into Massachusetts. Local geography makes the point concrete. The filing highlights the Pheasant Lane Mall area, where the state line between New Hampshire and Massachusetts runs through the parking lot. A shopper lawfully carrying with a New Hampshire permit can walk only a few feet and end up on the Massachusetts side, where that same permit carries no weight. The example underscores how everyday activity in border communities can collide with a strict non-recognition policy, even for carriers attempting to comply with the law. Massachusetts has defended its approach, maintaining that the state applies its licensing rules uniformly and that non-recognition of out-of-state permits is a policy choice consistent with its standards. In Marquis case, prosecutors have opposed efforts to dismiss, while the broader multistate challenge asks the high court to revisit the question with an eye toward how modern interstate travel interacts with state-level carry regimes. Whether the Supreme Court will accept the matter remains unknown. Coverage indicates a near-term schedule milestone: Marquis is due back in court for a hearing next week. That proceeding will move his individual case forward even as the coalition presses for national attention to the underlying legal question. For residents of New Hampshire and other permit-recognition states who routinely cross into Massachusetts for work or shopping, the ongoing uncertainty complicates everyday decisions about routing, stops, and where to secure a firearm before crossing the line. The policy stakes extend beyond one defendant. The coalitions message is that the Massachusetts rule imposes criminal risk on nonresidents who are lawful carriers at home, particularly in border areas where a brief detour or a parking-lot shortcut can have outsized consequences. Advocates for broader recognition argue that an individuals status should not pivot so sharply on geography when the person has already met another states licensing requirements. The Commonwealths position, meanwhile, preserves its internal standards and leaves nonresidents to comply by obtaining a Massachusetts license or leaving firearms behind before entry. Voices from the firearms retail community are also reflected in the reporting. A gun-store owner, Christopher Kielty, expressed support for nationwide relief and said he hopes the Supreme Court takes the case, adding a perspective from those who interact with permit holders daily. His comments encapsulate the frustration felt by carriers and businesses near the border who see non-recognition as a barrier to lawful self-defense for otherwise vetted individuals.