New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella has filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case involving two New Hampshire residents charged under Massachusetts gun laws. The move, joined by 24 other states, argues that the Second Amendment should not lose force when law-abiding citizens cross state borders, and that Massachusetts strict licensing regime unconstitutionally burdens nonresidents. The case arises from prosecutions of Dean Donnell Jr. and Philip Marquis, both Granite Staters who were arrested and charged while in Massachusetts. Donnell faced allegations of firearm possession without a state license, while Marquis was charged with carrying a large-capacity magazine in addition to unlawful possession. A district court initially dismissed both cases, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court later reversed, holding that the Commonwealths licensing system applies universally to all within its jurisdiction, regardless of residency. Attorney General Formella, backed by attorneys general from two dozen other states, contends that the Massachusetts approach imposes unreasonable obligations on out-of-state visitors. The brief emphasizes that in tightly interconnected New England, where residents routinely cross state lines for work, medical care, and family matters, requiring nonresidents to obtain a Massachusetts license is impractical and inconsistent with constitutional rights recognized in other jurisdictions. The filing frames the issue as both a constitutional question under the Bruen standard and a practical matter of interstate mobility. Notably, the brief highlights that New Hampshire is a constitutional-carry state where no permit is required to carry a firearm. Granite Staters accustomed to exercising their rights freely at home can unknowingly find themselves in legal jeopardy upon entering Massachusetts. According to the brief, this scenario creates a trap for the unwary, criminalizing conduct that is otherwise lawful and constitutionally protected. The coalition argues that the Second Amendment right to bear arms should not be nullified by state lines, just as other constitutional rights travel with citizens. The potential implications of Supreme Court review are significant. If the Court agrees to hear the case, it could set precedent on whether states may enforce restrictive licensing rules against nonresidents in ways that effectively bar them from exercising core constitutional rights. A ruling against Massachusetts could reshape reciprocity laws nationwide, forcing stricter states to accommodate visiting gun owners or adopt safe-harbor provisions for interstate travel. Conversely, if the Court declines review, Massachusetts restrictive framework will remain intact, signaling judicial reluctance to extend Bruen into the realm of cross-border recognition. While no other New England states joined the brief, the coalition includes attorneys general from across the Midwest, South, and West, demonstrating broad national concern about the reach of restrictive state laws. Legal observers note that the case could become a bellwether for how far Bruens history and tradition test extends beyond resident regulations into the practical realities of modern interstate life. For now, the charged individuals remain subject to Massachusetts law, and travelers from neighboring states are advised to leave firearms at home when entering the Commonwealth. Retailers and trainers in border communities have already begun warning customers about the risks, with some ranges hosting informational sessions to clarify state-by-state rules.