A coalition of 25 Republican-led states, spearheaded by New Hampshire, is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to rein in how Massachusetts applies its carry licensing rules to nonresidents. The case centers on Philip Marquis, a New Hampshire resident who was convicted under Massachusetts law after disclosing he had an unloaded pistol but lacked a Massachusetts license during a 2022 roadside stop on I-495. Marquiss legal team argues that the conviction criminalizes conduct that is lawful in his home state and imposes an unconstitutional barrier to the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The amici brief filed by the multistate coalition argues that requiring visitors to obtain a Massachusetts license before carrying a firearm violates both the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendments right to travel and equal protection clauses. Attorneys general involved in the filing point to practical complications, using the Pheasant Lane Mall as an example: one parking lot straddles the border between Nashua, New Hampshire, and Tyngsborough, Massachusetts, leaving gun owners vulnerable to instant criminal liability simply by crossing a property line. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court previously upheld the states licensing scheme in March, finding that it satisfied the history-and-tradition test set forth in the U.S. Supreme Courts 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision. However, New Hampshire and its allies argue that Massachusetts effectively maintains a may-issue framework by granting wide discretion to the state police colonel to deny licenses. They argue that Bruen demands a strictly objective shall-issue process, free from subjective or discretionary hurdles. The stakes of this case could reach far beyond the Bay State. If the Supreme Court grants review and sides with the challengers, it could force states with restrictive licensing regimes to honor the rights of lawful carriers traveling from other jurisdictions. Such a ruling might also encourage reciprocity agreements or push Congress to consider national carry reciprocity legislation. Conversely, if the Court declines to hear the case, the existing patchwork will remain, and gun owners will continue to face legal risks when crossing state lines with a firearm. The petition comes at a time when the Supreme Court has been selective in taking up Second Amendment cases post-Bruen. The justices narrowed the reach of Bruen in U.S. v. Rahimi by upholding certain restrictions on domestic violence offenders, and they have declined to hear several challenges to Massachusetts gun regulations, including cases involving sensitive-place restrictions and assault weapon bans. Whether the Court chooses to intervene on this specific interstate carry question will be a bellwether for how aggressively it intends to enforce Bruens framework going forward.