Massachusetts restrictive gun laws continue to come under well-deserved fire because of their failure to respect the Second Amendment.
We reported over the past week how gun owners have started an initiative petition to put a repeal of the new sweeping gun law on the statewide ballot and about the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) donating $100,000 to the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) to help fund that group’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law. Now two gun-rights groups have filed an amicus brief in another Massachusetts case challenging the state’s permit law that restricts lawful gun owners from carrying a firearm in the state.
The case involves New Hampshire resident Dean F. Donnell, Jr., who was stopped by police in Massachusetts and charged for carrying a firearm without a license. In the case named Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Donnell, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed their 38-page brief explaining their interest as that of their members’ ability to travel with firearms legally across state lines, to use them for lawful purposes.
“There is no historical tradition that justifies the non-resident licensing scheme now in place in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Looking back, a government license has not been required to exercise the right to carry arms. Such licenses came into existence only in the late 19th Century, and they applied only to the concealed carry of firearms. Open carry was unrestricted.”
In the brief, NRA and SAF argue that the law doesn’t meet the second Bruen standard of proving a historic precedent exists for such a restriction.
“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the government must justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the brief states. “Because the Supreme Court has already held that the Second Amendment’s plain text protects carrying handguns publicly for self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden of justifying its regulation with historical tradition. It has not and cannot do so.”
The brief further argues that no historical tradition exists that justifies the Commonwealth’s nonresident licensing scheme.
“Historically, nonresidents traveling in a state were treated no worse than residents with regard to firearm carry,” the brief states. “If they were treated differently under the law, it was generally to exempt travelers from carry restrictions—not to subject them to more onerous burdens than residents. Moreover, a government license was not historically required to exercise the right to carry arms; carry licenses that applied to free citizens were not enacted until the late-19th-century and applied only to concealed carry, leaving open carry unrestricted.”
Adam Kraut, SAF executive director and one of the attorneys in the case, said the act of just getting permit puts a huge burden on non-resident gun owners.
“New nonresident license applications require an in-person appointment in Massachusetts, necessitating an extra (unarmed) trip to the Commonwealth—which, especially for residents of distant states, becomes a barrier to entry that may be financially untenable,” Kraut said.
The NRA and SAF conclude in the brief that since the law violates the Second Amendment, the district court’s order of dismissal should be confirmed.
Read the full article here
