Gun Laws And 2a
New Hampshire’s Challenge to Massachusetts Gun Law Heads to U.S. Supreme Court
25-state coalition backs bid to exempt non-residents from Massachusetts carry permit requirement
📅
✍️By ZRIntel Editorial Team📍Concord, NH
New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella, joined by the attorneys general of 24 other Republican-led states, has filed an amici brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to Massachusetts strict concealed carry licensing scheme. The case centers on Philip Marquis, a New Hampshire resident convicted for carrying an unloaded pistol without a Massachusetts license after a 2022 traffic accident on Interstate 495. Marquis, who is legally permitted to carry in New Hampshire, argues that Massachusetts law violates his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights when applied to non-residents. The amici brief contends that the Bay States requirements effectively criminalize otherwise lawful conduct by travelers who are passing through or visiting Massachusetts. If that person is carrying a firearm without a Massachusetts license which would be constitutionally protected activity in most of the mall that person risks being charged as a felon and facing mandatory incarceration, the brief states, citing the unique geography of places like Nashuas Pheasant Lane Mall, where a single parking lot straddles the state line. The coalition argues that such restrictions fail the historical tradition test set forth in the Supreme Courts landmark 2022 Bruen decision, which struck down New Yorks proper cause requirement for carry permits. The case has significant implications for the interpretation of interstate reciprocity under the Second Amendment. While Massachusetts operates under a discretionary may-issue permitting scheme that requires non-residents to apply, pay a $100 fee, and receive approval from the colonel of the state police, New Hampshire automatically recognizes the right to carry for those not federally prohibited. The plaintiffs argue that this discretionary approval process makes the Massachusetts scheme unconstitutional under Bruens criteria, converting what should be a shall-issue process into a may-issue regime that infringes on lawful carriers from other states. Massachusetts officials counter that the law is constitutional and necessary to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. The state Supreme Judicial Court upheld the conviction earlier this year, holding that the licensing scheme comports with historical tradition by restricting firearm possession to those who can be shown not to present a risk. The state further argues that it has a compelling interest in regulating firearms to maintain public safety, especially in densely populated areas. If the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari, it could use the case to clarify whether states must recognize the carry rights of non-residents whose home states allow permitless carry or maintain more permissive licensing regimes. Legal scholars note that such a decision could have sweeping consequences, effectively establishing a form of national carry reciprocity by constitutional mandate. The case also touches on Fourteenth Amendment arguments, with Marquis legal team asserting that the Massachusetts scheme violates the right to travel and equal protection by penalizing out-of-state residents differently. Observers caution that the high court has recently been selective in taking Second Amendment cases following its Bruen decision. Although the Court has struck down certain discretionary permitting schemes and weighed in on domestic violence restrictions in Rahimi, it has declined to take several challenges to assault weapon and magazine bans. Whether the Court is willing to extend its analysis to require interstate carry recognition remains to be seen.