Posted on 03/20/2025 10:06:39 AM PDT by marktwain
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took two cases in which non-residents were arrested and prosecuted for possessing firearms and ammunition in Massachusetts. Both cases involved residents of New Hampshire, where the defendants could legally carry firearms without permits. The cases were combined for the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The decisions were rendered on March 11, 2025. The decisions were opposite for the two cases.
In the decision for the earlier case, Commonwealth v. Donnell, the Court found the Massachusetts firearm licensing scheme at the time of Donnell’s arrest to be unconstitutional because the law was a “may issue” law that allowed discretion on the part of the issuing official. From findlaw.com:
Our holding today does not, as the Commonwealth suggests, preclude it from requiring firearm licenses for persons within its borders. See Marquis, 495 Mass. at ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––. To be consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commonwealth’s nonresident firearm licensing scheme cannot vest an official with the discretion to deny a license to a qualified applicant. The defendant was charged under a firearm licensing scheme that did just that. This manner of firearm restriction is no longer permissible. Bruen, supra. Accordingly, the allowance of the defendant’s motion to dismiss is affirmed.
In the second case, Commonwealth v. Philip J. Marquis, the court upheld the new shall-issue law as constitutional. They found Marquis did not have standing because he had not applied for a nonresident permit under the new Massachusetts law. From findlaw.com, Commonwealth v. Philip J. Marquis:
This is one of two cases we decide today in which we determine the constitutionality of the Commonwealth’s nonresident firearm licensing scheme.1 See Commonwealth v. Donnell, 495 Mass. (2025). While we consider a prior version of the nonresident firearm licensing scheme in Donnell, here we consider the current
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
We need national caonstitutional carry and natl reciprocity.
All of the courts in the US are going to be seen as corrupt and useless soon if the Supreme Court doesn’t step in, and stop using twisted pretzel rulings that kicks the can down the road or defies reason.
Continuing to use lawfare to push radical homosexual and trans agenda, along with stopping clearly elected officials from doing their jobs with minor courts setting themselves up to by the law of the land is going to cost them soon.
Soon, all courts in the US will be no more use than the CDC is now that they tarnished its reputation over COVID.
Sounds bizarre. And confusing Seems like they are allowing carry. Hopefully the people are not convicted.
Doctors
Media
Schools
Courts
Government
People are waking up and finding that all the big institutions are corrupt and not worthy of respect.
I think the only solution to our federal judge activism is for the Congress to dissolve all of the federal court districts and re-create new ones that President Trump can then nominate judges to.
We need national caonstitutional carry and natl reciprocity.
I’d bet if this case went to the Supreme Court & the verdict corrected it would amount to as much. No lawful citizen in the United States should be prohibited from carrying - open or concealed - in any other jurisdiction.
Yeah, the courts’ reputation is/will be in tatters.
What I fear is, they shrug and say ‘So what?’ what we say still goes and that’s that. They figure their future does not include tar and feathers and they’re probably right.
It might, however, include being on the wrong end of a gun and that might get their attention. (Not that I’m advocating that...but some insurance companies changed their tune after that United Healthcare boss was killed)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.