Does anyone else remember when the British Army marched 700 redcoats to Barrett’s Farm in Concord, Massachusetts back in April 1775? Their mission was to confiscate arms, powder, and artillery that were being stored by the Concord militia to defend their liberty and freedom against a tyrannical government. Because of advance warning provided by Paul Revere, the militia was able to hide their armaments and avoid the destruction of arms, which would shortly after be used during the Battles of Lexington and Concord the following day.
Fast forward 251 years and the once great Commonwealth of Massachusetts has become a pillar of taxation, repression, government overreach, and egregious infringements on citizens’ rights! Just like during the reign of King George III, the goal of an unarmed and defenseless populace is in plain view for the entire country to see, and little is done about it. An entire political party, to include the leadership of neighboring states, applauds each gun control action and quickly follows suit with versions of their own. Despite SCOTUS rulings such as District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, “they” find any way possible to shirk the legalities of their action in a non-stop cycle of government abuse.
Despite the Constitution being clear on Americans’ RIGHT to keep and bear arms, SCOTUS ruling after ruling reaffirming these rights and the momentum across the nation regarding permitless carry, Massachusetts willfully DOES NOT CARE. From a lack of reciprocity with any state, mandatory state-approved training requirements, high fees and a backlog of applications, for those desiring to exercise their inalienable right of self-defense, it’s not easy. For anyone living outside the Commonwealth but wanting to “follow the law” and receive a permit, good luck. Add multiple trips to the state, additional fees and extended waiting periods and you could apply for their ONE-YEAR permit. Looking at the current wait times, if everything went smoothly, you may be able to “legally carry” for about 3-4 months before having to repeat the process.
But what if having the ability to carry a concealed firearm isn’t convenient for out-of-state residents and more about survival. Imagine what happens when a woman flees an abusive partner or stalker across state lines, but the government makes her wait months before she can legally carry a firearm to protect herself? Thankfully a federal lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’ nonresident carry-permit system raises that question in a way that deserves far more attention.
The Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners’ Action League and three individual plaintiffs filed Lawson v. Campbell in federal court in 2025, challenging Massachusetts’ treatment of nonresidents who want to legally carry firearms in the Commonwealth. The plaintiffs argue that Massachusetts imposes extraordinary burdens on non-resident applicants. While Massachusetts sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, a federal judge has now largely rejected that effort, allowing the heart of the challenge to continue.
At its core, Lawson asks an important constitutional question: If the government requires a permit before someone can exercise a constitutional right, how long can it make that person wait before a licensing requirement becomes a denial of that right? But there are several other questions Massachusetts should have to answer.
What if the person waiting is hiding from someone who wants to hurt her? Sometimes Survival Means Leaving the State. Domestic violence and stalking victims don’t always have the luxury of remaining in the state where they established their lives and leaving may be part of the safety plan. A woman may leave her home and stay with relatives. She may change jobs, move hundreds of miles away or cross a state line specifically because she doesn’t want an abusive former partner to know where she is. Stalking victims may take similar measures, but relocation doesn’t necessarily make the threat disappear.
An abuser can locate a new workplace. A stalker can find a new address. Social media, location-sharing technology, public records and mutual acquaintances can all expose information a victim desperately tried to keep private. And an abuser doesn’t lose his ability to cross state lines just because his victim does. That’s what makes Massachusetts’ treatment of nonresident carry applicants particularly concerning.
Imagine a woman who already owns a firearm and legally carries it in the state where she lives. She is trained, experienced and has made the personal decision that carrying a firearm is part of her safety plan. Then she flees to Massachusetts. The threat can follow her immediately, while her ability to legally carry cannot. Instead, according to SAF’s allegations, she may face a permitting process lasting six months or more.
For the average applicant, six months is an outrageous delay. For a woman hiding from a stalker, six months can be something entirely different. A stalking victim may move because she believes distance will protect her. A domestic violence survivor may leave everything familiar behind because staying has become too dangerous. But crossing a state line can create an entirely new vulnerability. She may have legally carried a firearm every day before leaving. She may have completed training. She may possess a valid permit from another state. She may have a protective order documenting the threat she faces. Yet when she enters a state that doesn’t recognize her ability to carry, she can suddenly lose access to one of the defensive options she previously relied upon. Massachusetts then potentially compounds that problem by making a nonresident wait months for permission. Abusers, however, not concerned about laws, have norestrictions and frequently continue their cycles of abuse, to include murder. Apparently, Massachusetts does not care.
The courts will ultimately decide Lawson v. Campbell based on constitutional law. The Second and Fourteenth Amendments, Supreme Court precedent and the historical tradition of firearm regulation will determine whether Massachusetts can continue imposing these burdens on nonresidents. But outside the courtroom, the practical question is much simpler. Who bears the risk while Massachusetts processes the paperwork? It’s not the official processing of the application. It’s not the legislator who wrote the law; the person forced to wait to “legally” exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right does.
From leading a rebellion to becoming an exact copy of what early Americans were forced to rebel against, Massachusetts is failing Americans. Don’t become complicit in your own state’s and turn a blind eye to even a seemingly insignificant abuse of authority, restriction on rights or a little temporary security at the expense of liberty.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
