State of New Hampshire Challenges ‘Unjust’ and ‘Unconstitutional’ Massachusetts Firearm Regulations

The briefs were filed in support of two New Hampshire residents who were charged after crossing into Massachusetts without carrying proper firearm licenses.

“The cases involve two New Hampshire residents who were each charged with carrying firearms without licenses in Massachusetts,” said the statement.

“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.

“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.

The brief from the state AG argues that this restriction violates a person’s rights under the Second Amendment.

“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.

“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.

“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.”

“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.

“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.”

“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 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.”