To be clear, Massachusetts is one of the leading states in the drive to eradicate gun rights. This made the judge’s decision even more remarkable.
Lowell District Court Justice John F. Coffey issued his ruling on Aug. 3 in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dean F. Donnell. “An individual only loses a constitutional right if he commits an offense or has been engaged in certain behavior.” That right is not lost simply by traveling to a neighboring state that happens to require its residents to obtain a license to practice that constitutional privilege.
He added the Massachusetts law treats the Second Amendment different from other individual rights.
On those grounds, Coffey ruled that the state law requiring the temporary permit was unconstitutional “as applied to this particularly situated defendant.”
The ramifications of the surprise ruling may be broad. The Supreme Court recognized a general right to carry a firearm in last year’s landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling.
This Massachusetts decision is one of the first handed down involving carry rights across state lines since Bruen. It may fuel the push by gun rights supporters for a system of “national reciprocity” in which states honor the firearms laws of other states in a reciprocal manner.
The defendant, Dean F. Donnell, is a resident of New Hampshire. That is important because his home state is a permitless gun carry state. This status grants the right to any law-abiding citizen 18 or older to carry publicly — openly or concealed.
New Hampshire also practices reciprocity and issues permits to those desiring them for that purpose.
Unfortunately, Massachusetts does not.
Donnell was charged after crossing the state line even though he was perfectly in compliance with his home state’s statutes. The Massachusetts law which he allegedly violated carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 18 months behind bars for a person convicted of carrying a firearm in public without the state license.
Judge Coffey, however, ruled that the defendant’s actions were “clearly covered by the Second Amendment.”
Bruen also set a standard for gun control laws to follow the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. Preceding gun laws concerning legal carry, however, do not reach the standard set in Bruen, rendering the Massachusetts statute targeting nonresidents unconstitutional.
The state clearly did not have legal grounds to defend the law in the face of the Bruen decision. Massachusetts attorneys tried to cite examples of previous court rulings, but Coffey did not buy that argument.
He noted that the state treated carrying a weapon as a privilege, not a right. “While it allowed nonresidents to apply to obtain a license for that privilege, nonresidents were not treated the same as residents. Residents of Massachusetts obtaining a license were granted the license for five years. A temporary nonresident license was only valid for one year.”
That result did not hold water with Coffey. Therefore, the state’s felony charge against Donnell was thrown out.
“This Court can think of no other constitutional right which a person loses simply by traveling beyond his home state’s border into another state continuing to exercise that right and instantaneously becomes a felon subject to mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration.”
While there are no instant nationwide changes brought about by the ruling, it established a precedent that other courts may consider when faced with similar cases. This is good news for anyone who believes constitutional rights do not disappear at state lines.
