Applicants for non-resident Massachusetts licenses to carry have endured excessive delays and burdens. On August 13, 2025, the Second Amendment Foundation filed a suit to challenge the strict permitting law.
People wishing to carry a concealed pistol in the Bay State must first obtain a license to carry. Licences to carry are available to non-residents on a temporary basis. It seems post-Bruen there was a policy shift with out-of-state licences caused to take an excessive amount of time to process. The Second Amendment Foundation filed Lawson v. Campbell to challenge the onerous law in Massachusetts.
Lawson was filed in federal court for the District of Massachusetts. Joining Second Amendment Foundation in the lawsuit are Gun Owners Action League and three individual plaintiffs; Russell Lawson Jr., Brian Burns, and Christopher Penta.
“The process of acquiring and maintaining a Massachusetts non-resident permit is wrought with burden, cost and delay,” Second Amendment Foundation said in a release. “The initial permit application process often takes six months or more and includes repeated mandatory in-person visits to the commonwealth, creating an unconstitutional barrier to an applicant’s right to carry for self-defense.”
In comparison to resident licenses, the non-resident credential is only good for one year while the resident is valid for six. “Unlike the full-fledged LTCs only made available to residents, no grace periods exist for the temporary LTCs to which non-residents are relegated,” the complaint observes. “So, every day after expiration and before renewal is a day that it is illegal for them to engage in any of the otherwise constitutionally protected firearm activities—as if they had no license at all.”
The exercise of the Second Amendment is functionally non-existent for non-residents of the Commonwealth. Limited possession exemptions do exist under some circumstances, but not for common everyday occurrences.
“Thanks to the Massachusetts permitting regime, non-residents who travel to – or even through – the state for business or vacation must follow the extremely long permit process or risk arrest and prosecution,” said Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments clearly protect the right of ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizens’ to carry handguns for self-defense, and the state is violating the constitutional rights of non-residents with such a burdensome process to receive and renew a license to carry.”
Much like other draconian states, Massachusetts delivers stiff penalties for those who are in violation of their firearm laws. The complaint notes that “a violation of this scheme carries serious consequences, for any knowing possession of a firearm without an LTC constitutes a felony and ‘shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years, or for not less than 18 months nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction.’ M.G.L.A. c. 269, § 10(a)(6).”
Overzealous penalties do chill the right to keep and bear arms for those even considering passing through the Commonwealth — where there’s no provision for things like staying overnight, a common activity when in the course of travel. This is particularly burdensome when neighboring states to the north — Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine — are all permitless.
78 percent of the land within New England does not require a firearm permit or license for carry. However, Massachusetts, the most violent and crime-ridden of the New England states, requires firearm-related licenses for possession and procurement.
“We proved it in California, and we’ll prove it in Massachusetts – you cannot force someone to give up their Second Amendment because they cross a state line,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Second Amendment applies to all Americans in all states, period. With this lawsuit we aim to restore the right to keep and bear arms for everyone who wants to travel to Massachusetts, and we look forward to showing why this law is in clear violation of the Second Amendment.”
SAF and GOAL both have an uphill battle. While the facts are on their side, they’re in hostile territory. The district court has not been overly kind to the Second Amendment in the Bay State. Further, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where Massachusetts is situated, includes four Biden appointees and one Obama appointee — a group that’s not sympathetic to the plight of those who have had their Second Amendment right infringed upon.
The topic of out-of-state firearm carriers entering another jurisdiction is ripe for challenge, as Gottlieb observed in his comments. The country needs the robust protection of national reciprocity. The deconstructing of state barriers to non-resident carry will help in the fight overall. We’ll be watching closely the progress of this case as it proceeds through the courts.
Editor’s Note: Sam Adams, John Hancock, Joseph Warren, and Paul Revere would be appalled at how their state now treats our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member