Massachusetts Supreme Court Moves Forward With Cross Border Carry Case

AmmoLand ^ | September 19, 2024 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On September 9, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held oral arguments in the cases of Commonwealth v Donnell. Another similar case in which a New Hampshire citizen worked in Massachusetts, Marquis, was consolidated with the Donnell case. Both cases involve New Hampshire citizens who had firearms in their automobiles in Massachusetts

The case concerns whether Massachusetts can impose undue burdens on people from out of state who can legally carry weapons in their home state. It appears the court has received all the arguments in this case and will now consider them and file an opinion and order. It is not known what the process will take. In the case of Commonwealth v Canjura, the Massachusetts Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 4, 2023, and issued their decision on August 27, 2024, a period of nine months. If the same time is used for the Donnell case, we may see an opinion issued in June of 2025. The decision would straddle the presidential election.

Commonwealth v Canjura was decided by a unanimous Massachusetts Supreme Court, which did a good job following the guidance issued by the US Supreme Court in the Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen decisions.  All of the Massachusetts Supreme Court Justices who sat on the Canjura case are sitting on the Donnell case. One more Supreme Court Justice has been added to the Donnell case, Justice Gabriella Wolohojian, appointed by Governor Healy in April of 2024.

As considered in a previous AmmoLand article, a number of high-powered amicus briefs have been filed in this case. From August 19 to September 9, the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the CATO Institute, the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition filed additional

[marktwain]

This case may end up at the Supreme Court. The judges were clear: the implication is forced reciprocity for all states.

[marktwain]

To be clear, the case is at the Massachusetts supreme court. It may end up at the US Supreme Court.

[Sacajaweau]

Of course there should be reciprocity...The Bill of Rights is for everyone.

[marktwain]

At the oral arguments, you could see the Justices trying to grapple with this. It appeared to me they were trying hard to figure a way out of doing their duty.

The impression was, they did not want to be the ones who made the decision that Second Amendment rights crossed state lines. However, they were good at being poker-faced. I don't expect a decision for at least six months. The decision may depend on who wins the election for President.

[joe fonebone]

Every time I look at that pesky constitution thingie I see the words, Shall Not Be Infringed.....
I wonder what those words mean?

[fwdude]

The same liberals who forced “gay mirage” onto all the states as a “full faith and credit” constitutional application will nevertheless deny this for an explicitly mentioned 2nd Amendment right.

[Little Pig]

I wonder if reciprocity with states that don’t impose a “May Issue” standard for permits (if they even have permits) could be used as leverage to eliminate the odious “May Issue” requirement for Mass firearms ownership.

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[hinckley buzzard]

If Mass gets it wrong it will for sure go to Scotus.

[Vermont Lt]

I have a license to carry in MA. I live 200 yards from the CT border. I have to be sure that I don’t carry in CT.

The difference between the states? In CT, the training class lasts 1.5 hours longer.

So if I got “caught” in CT, I would face some pretty severe penalties. This was pounded into our heads when we had our training many years ago.

I don’t understand why reciprocal licensing doesn’t apply from MA. It has some of the strictest provisions in the country. If I can carry here, I would imagine I meet the standards for everywhere else I am going to travel.

[1Old Pro]

The impression was, they did not want to be the ones who made the decision that Second Amendment rights crossed state lines.

cowards

[metmom]

Ping

[rktman]

Neither should there be CCW requirements. Nationally.

[marktwain]

I wonder if reciprocity with states that don’t impose a “May Issue” standard for permits (if they even have permits) could be used as leverage to eliminate the odious “May Issue” requirement for Mass firearms ownership.

Because of the Supreme Court decision in Bruen, Massachusetts is now supposed to be "shall issue". How they implement it is another issue.

[Little Pig]

I know the decisions mean that the state is supposed to be “Shall Issue”. As you say though, it’s how (and more importantly WHEN) the state will make the change. I’m sure the process will be as onerous as Beacon Hill can contrive, but if they have to issue the license, that’s enough for now.

[Jim Noble]

I have a MA nonresident license to carry firearms.

One of the things you have to do to get that license is to demonstrate familiarity with MA firearms laws.

The issue in this case (I believe) is that some of the laws contradict each other. There is no source of authority willing to deconflict the laws in writing in such a way as to keep you out of trouble.

You can, for example, have a loaded firearm in your vehicle, AS LONG AS it is “under your direct control” (i.e., you are sitting in the driver’s seat). When you arrive and park, you can take it with you, UNLESS you are going to a prohibited place.

But if your business takes you to a prohibited place, once you exit the vehicle without it, it is no longer “under your direct control”. It is illegal to park your vehicle with a loaded firearm in it. It is arguably illegal to leave a locked up and unloaded firearm in your vehicle.

There are several other examples. My license is for “large capacity” firearms, but no one is permitted more than ten rounds, license or no license, and certain jurisdictions (Boston, for example) have stricter limits.

It will be very interesting to see what the SJC’s take on this case is.