Massachusetts is one of a handful of states (all of them controlled by Democrats) that don't recognize the validity of any out-of-state carry licenses. The only way for non-residents to lawfully carry a handgun in the state is to apply for a non-resident permit; a cumbersome and expensive process that involves making an in-person visit to the Firearms Records Bureau, as well as proof of training by a Massachusetts-certified firearms instructor.
Possessing a rifle or shotgun, though, is a little different. According to Massachusetts General Law Ch. 140 § 129C(l), "A nonresident who is at least 18 years of age may possess rifles and shotguns that are not large capacity or semi-automatic and ammunition therefor if the nonresident has a permit, card or license issued from their state of residence which has substantially similar requirements to those of the commonwealth for a firearm identification card as determined by the colonel of the state police pursuant to subsection (1)."
So what states has the colonel of the Massachusetts state police determined have "substantially similar requirements"? No one knows, which is why the Gun Owners Action League submitted a public records request to the state police last month asking for "copies of public records that pertain to this requirement in order to get an understanding as to where the list stands or if there is even any intention of releasing one."
Under Massachusetts' public records law, officials generally have ten days to respond to a request like GOAL's. Well, it's been far longer than that, and the group says it's heard nothing at all from the state police. Now GOAL is taking the next step. Last Friday, the group submitted an appeal to the Secretary of the Commonwealth alerting them of the non-response to the request. To my surprise, the office actually agreed with GOAL and sent a letter to the state police on March 17th, directing them to answer GOAL's question.
GOAL is not trying to attack the State Police or even highlight any sort of evasiveness on their part. This matter is simply an example of one of the fundamental flaws of Chapter 135: the Legislature set up gun owners to fail and it set up the state agencies assigned to administer the law to fail as well.
This is due to a number of issues but specifically in no small part to the confusing language used in the law as well as the lack of funding for implementation. In order to circumvent the Governor’s ability to scratch out certain provisions of the law if there is a funding source attached to them; called a “line-item veto.” These “unfunded mandates” often push state agencies to their limits, usually at the cost of diminishing their ability to provide the service they’ve been mandated to provide. In this case, the State Police has been tasked with massive increases in their duties surrounding firearms licensing and enforcement, with no increases in their resources leaving them understaffed, underfunded and under prioritized.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts continues to show how little it values the civil rights of its citizens.
I can't wait to see the response from the state police here in a few days. Will the agency admit that the colonel has yet to determine if any states have substantially similar requirements? Will they declare that there are no states with requirements to possess a long gun as restrictive as Massachusetts? Or will the colonel toss a curveball and release a list of states, however small, that do have substantially similar requirements so that residents of those states can possess some long guns in Massachusetts without the need to acquire a Massachusetts Firearm ID card?
If the head of the state police hasn't promulgated that list, and especially if there are no qualifying states, then GOAL has some legal ammunition to challenge another aspect of Chapter 135. Other portions of the law are already being litigated, and 2A advocates are working to get the law repealed via referendum this November. The response to GOAL's public records request may also be of benefit to The Civil Rights Coalition by giving them more evidence to present to voters that the sweeping gun control laws included in Chapter 135 are not just unconstitutional, but unworkable from a practical perspective.... which, sadly, may be the stronger of the two arguments in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
When GOAL finally gets its answer we'll be sure to share it here, and I'll bring on GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace to Bearing Arms' Cam & Company to give us all the details and talk about the next steps. Whatever the response from the state police might be, there's a good chance it will lead to at least a little bit more firearm freedom in Massachusetts, and GOAL should be commended for holding the state's feet to the fire.
