The attorney general of New Hampshire filed briefs in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Monday, attempting to challenge laws that punish residents who cross state lines with guns.
The briefs were filed in support of two New Hampshire residents who were charged after crossing into Massachusetts without carrying proper firearm licenses.
Legal Challenge
On August 19, New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella released a statement announcing the challenge to Massachusetts gun laws, calling them unconstitutional for punishing New Hampshire residents without licenses.
“The cases involve two New Hampshire residents who were each charged with carrying firearms without licenses in Massachusetts,” said the statement.
Standing Up For the Second Amendment
In his statement, Formella outlined his opposition to the Massachusetts laws, which he saw as restrictive.
“This brief is crucial because it stands up for the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, not just for New Hampshire residents but for all law-abiding citizens traveling across state lines. By challenging Massachusetts’ restrictive firearm laws, we are affirming that constitutional freedoms should not be undermined by inconsistent and overly burdensome regulations,” said Formella.
Rights Across Borders
Formella feels that rights guaranteed by the Constitution should be protected across the country, and not just in certain state borders.
“This is all about ensuring that responsible gun owners can protect themselves without fear of unjust legal consequences when they cross state borders. Upholding these rights is essential for safeguarding personal safety and reinforcing the principle that the Constitution must be respected and upheld nationwide,” Formella said.
Massachusetts Law
New Hampshire is challenging a provision in Massachusetts law that makes it a felony for non-residents to carry firearms that they would be legally allowed to possess in their state of origin.
The brief from the state AG argues that this restriction violates a person’s rights under the Second Amendment.
Historical Argument
Another argument put forward by New Hampshire in their brief is that the Massachusetts law violates historical precedent.
“The brief notes that there is no historical precedent for such restrictive measures against non-residents. In fact, historical precedent supports such clear passage while carrying. The current Massachusetts law fails to meet historical standards required to justify significant burdens on Second Amendment rights,” said the AG statement.
Importance of Historical Tradition
The historical precedent of past gun laws has become an increasingly important metric after a 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned a New York gun law and established a requirement governments have to meet to enforce gun regulations.
“To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the decision.
Right to Self-Defense
The filing from the AG’s office asserts that Massachusetts’ concern about crime in enforcing these laws endangers New Hampshire residents.
“Massachusetts, like many states, deals with significant and substantial crime in its communities,” said the filing. “Accordingly, it is illogical to think that the moment a New Hampshire citizen crosses the border into Massachusetts that he or she is stripped of his or her constitutionally protected right to self-defense.”
Lower Court Ruling
New Hampshire in the briefs pointed out that a lower court in Massachusetts had already ruled on this issue in their favor, with the court saying that the state of Massachusetts cannot prosecute out-of-state residents for illegally carrying guns if their home state allowed it.
“This brief supports a Lowell (Massachusetts) District Court ruling that found Massachusetts’ firearm regulations unconstitutional as applied to non-residents temporarily traveling to the state,” said the New Hampshire AG statement.
Locking People Up
In comments to WBZ-TV, retired Massachusetts Judge Jack Lu emphasized the seriousness of being caught with a gun in the state and criticized the laws.
“You get caught with a gun in Massachusetts, you’re in for one of the most traumatic experiences of your life. This is not a glorified speeding ticket,” said Lu. “It doesn’t help to lock them up though. You can do a lot of things to people besides lock them up. You can change their behavior better that way, than by locking them up.”
Defending the Law
In an appeal in the lower court ruling, Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan criticized the judge’s original decision and said the two New Hampshire residents had failed to apply for the necessary non-resident license to carry their firearms.
“The judge’s rationale deprives the Commonwealth of its right and obligation to enforce its laws equally for all those who are within its borders,” Ryan wrote.
Massachusetts AG’s View
Andra Campbell, the Attorney General for Massachusetts, has also filed a brief as part of the case, attempting to justify the laws on the books.
“Massachusetts applies its laws evenly to residents and non-residents alike,” Campbell said in a statement. “Nothing in the Constitution prohibits Massachusetts law enforcement officers from enforcing state law within its own borders, simply because someone is from a different state.”
