CONCORD, N.H.– Attorney General John M. Formella announces that New Hampshire is filing an amicus curiae brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. 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. The cases involve two New Hampshire residents who were each charged with carrying firearms without licenses in Massachusetts.
New Hampshire’s amicus brief supports the lower court’s decision and argues that Mass. Gen. Law 269, sec. 10(a) and Mass. Gen Law 140, sec. 131F unconstitutional as applied to two New Hampshire residents temporarily traveling across state lines. Given the frequent travel between New Hampshire and neighboring Massachusetts, the State of New Hampshire supports this ruling and argues that Granite Staters (or any non-Massachusetts residents) who are temporarily traveling to Massachusetts should not face potential felony convictions and imprisonment solely for lacking a Massachusetts gun license or permit.
“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 Attorney General 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.”
Key Points of New Hampshire’s Brief:
- Constitutional Protection: The brief argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms for self-defense beyond one’s home. Massachusetts’ law, which makes it a felony for non-residents to carry firearms that they would be lawfully allowed to carry in their home state, infringes upon this right.
- Historical Precedent: 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.
- Impact on Rights: The brief warns of the dangers of criminalizing lawful behavior across state lines, potentially leading to severe and unjust legal consequences for citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights while traveling.
New Hampshire’s involvement reflects its commitment to protecting the rights of its residents and ensuring state laws do not unduly infringe upon constitutional freedoms. The Granite State’s amicus brief highlights the broader implications of the court’s ruling, advocating for the protection of individual liberties and the necessity of ensuring that responsible gun owners can travel without fear of becoming a felon the moment that they travel over the Massachusetts border.
