New Hampshire Resident With Carry Permit Wins Court Case In Massachusetts Over Carry Across State Lines

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    21,737
    Here is a more technical explanation from our favorite long winded lawyer:

     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    21,737
    This YouTube video has a better analysis of the case and how it might be interpreted. Yes this specific case does not change things however it lays the groundwork and provides a roadmap and arguments for others to follow in future cases that will impact interstate carry. Remember this is a fundamental right not a privilege like a drivers license.

     

    Gravedigger

    Junior Member
    Dec 25, 2014
    76
    Can you say National reciprocity .... in the future! Not the near future.
    Thank you

    Massachusetts

     

    press1280

    Active Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,702
    WV
    Pretty interesting. I would think the state would try to appeal this. If not, this opens the door to Mass having to recognize Constitutional Carry states' residents.
    I don't know if this will necessarily stand, I have to be honest.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Active Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    31,649
    Pretty interesting. I would think the state would try to appeal this. If not, this opens the door to Mass having to recognize Constitutional Carry states' residents.
    I don't know if this will necessarily stand, I have to be honest.


    Blanket recognition of Con Carry State residents is two leaps down the road . Recognitiongnition of actual Permits is step one .
     

    fishgutzy

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 25, 2022
    762
    AA County
    The Camel just stuck his nose under the tent flap. But a lower court properly, IMHO, applied Bruen in a case that has significance to gun owners all over the country.
    Very true.
    It was a very ballsy move for a Lowell Judge in MA.
    Pre-Bruen, Lowell was on the "red light" list. Towns were rated by gun owners for how corrupt/restrictive their "may issue" regime was. Lowell was a "don't even waster your money." They only approved permits for cops, elected democrats, business owners who made the right campaign donations, or if one could prove one had already been a victim of violent crime and had a credible threat of recurrence.
    If the DA can appeal the decision to the MA SJC, the SJC will reverse it without regard to Bruen or any other constitutional provision. The federal appeals court for that circuit will uphold the MASJC, just as it did in Ceatano (which SCOTUS overturned on a unanimous ruling). The left is hoping that in 5 years there will be a communist majority SCOTUS that will invent a "right to safety" that will obliterate the entire bill of rights.
     

    fishgutzy

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 25, 2022
    762
    AA County
    Blanket recognition of Con Carry State residents is two leaps down the road . Recognitiongnition of actual Permits is step one .
    The occasionally proposed national reciprocity bill includes a provision that for residents of Con Carry their state issued ID from that state is their permit.
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    21,737
    Here is another analysis of the case:



    Interesting, if the anti gunners push back too hard on the "But you need a permit to exercise your right." argument they just might end up abolishing permits altogether.
     
    Last edited:

    GuitarmanNick

    Active Member
    Jan 9, 2017
    2,182
    Laurel
    Based upon my understanding of the English language, this ruling seems to describe constitutional carry in all 50 states. Did I miss something?
     

    Chauchat

    Member
    Jan 16, 2014
    101
    In the free States
    I've been thinking on this. There is a "historical analogue" to all this jabbering about twentieth century socialist fire arms control. Up until the 1930s a man could go from shore to shore carrying any possession with him, or on him, that he may dare think because up until then we were free to lead our lives with out the power of the state interference , whether the Union or the sovereign States. So any legislature that created any statute against a citizen is a rogue legislature against the inalienable rights of the people and their acts are void.

    It was not until the socialists came to full power in the '30s did the control float to the surface. We had to get tough on crime. So a man convicted of a "felony" and did his time was no longer considered to have paid his debt to society. No. Permanent punishment was needed by dis-arming him for life. His life is now in jeopardy because he was not allowed to have a firearm to exercise his inalienable right to self defence. The premise that once a felon, always a felon, came into the psyche of the Union. Certainly, there were those who could not be returned to morality and goodness. Many others were caught in the Burn the Witches mentality. It was at that time the country lurched toward totalitarianism. Every thing was against the law and still is. But murder someone and the state was evil for killing a man who violated God's law handed down to Moses. Eye for an eye perished in many places.

    Of course, not every thing was peaches and cream. The people in some places were corrupt and by extension the courts became corrupt by sending some innocent to prison or letting a truly guilty go free. Too, the courts and legislatures are still corrupt.

    The New Hampshire - Massachusetts decision is a step in the right direction. Some day we will not need any permit to go across any state line. It will be as it was in 1776.

    History is with us and thanks to Justice Thomas we are on the long road back to the republic.
     
    Last edited:

    Crazytrain

    Certified Grump
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 8, 2007
    1,529
    Sparks, MD
    This was an excellent decision. It does not set precedent. But, damn, it has certainly laid out the arguments for further cases.

    I mean... a felony? Isn't that a bit much? Tad bit? One year minimum sentence? This is obviously the right way to read the 2nd, interpret Bruen, and apply justice. I hope we get more of this.

    And big kudos to the OP for a clear thread title.
     

    GTOGUNNER

    IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 16, 2010
    5,474
    Carroll County!
    2x Wv has asked Maryland AG to recognize Wv permits. The first letter was kinda formal. The second letter was more like if you harass West Virginians driving thru Maryland, I’m coming for you. Its my understanding that such a suit would go straight to the Supreme Court. Now that Morrissey may have his eyes on Governor or Manchins seat. I haven’t heard much. Maybe a letter to him is in order.
     

    Allen65

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    6,735
    Anne Arundel County
    2x Wv has asked Maryland AG to recognize Wv permits. The first letter was kinda formal. The second letter was more like if you harass West Virginians driving thru Maryland, I’m coming for you. Its my understanding that such a suit would go straight to the Supreme Court. Now that Morrissey may have his eyes on Governor or Manchins seat. I haven’t heard much. Maybe a letter to him is in order.
    Yup. See COTUS, Article III Section 2 Clause 1
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
     

    press1280

    Active Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,702
    WV
    Here is another analysis of the case:



    Interesting, if the anti gunners push back too hard on the "But you need a permit to exercise your right." argument they just might end up abolishing permits altogether.

    Another issue which could push the courts in that direction is these anti states are making it more and more difficult to get a permit, even with the need requirement gone.
    Many charge more for out of state residents (some like CA and NY don’t even issue), and according to Handgunlaw for MA a non resident has to apply in person in Chelsea, which is near Boston. A VT resident would have to drive clear across the state to get the permit.
    They can’t have it both ways where they require the permit yet make it as difficult as possible. Scotus may just say screw it at some point and tell these states you had your chance but chose to be obstructionists so your permit schemes are out the window.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    272,212
    Messages
    7,140,129
    Members
    32,723
    Latest member
    Newtoitmaryland

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom