Major Players Amicus Briefs in Cross Border Carry Case, Massachusetts Supreme Court

 As of August 19, 2023 five amicus briefs in favor of the defendant have been filed in the seminal interstate carry case of Commonweath v Donnel. Arguments are to be heard before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts on September 9, 2024.

On June 19, 2024, this correspondent noted only one amicus (friend of the court) brief had been filed in favor of the defendant, Dean F. Donnell, Jr. Donnell, a New Hampshire resident, was arrested in Massachusetts for carrying a firearm without a Massachusetts license. The district court opinion found the law requiring a license for law abiding people from other states, who could legally carry in their own state, was facially (obvious on its face) unconstitutional.  Four other amicus briefs have been submitted by August 19.

One of those briefs was submitted by several organizations acting together to defend the Constitutional rights to arms and self defense. Those organizations were:  California Rifle and Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners Association, Operation Blazing Sword – Pink Pistols, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition,  and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois.

The brief was submitted by Jason A. Guida. It is a well written and well argued brief. The brief is 39 pages long. Here is the summary of the argument. From the brief:

This case is simple. There is no historical tradition supporting a requirement that peaceable nonresidents already permitted to carry in their home states submit to a burdensome process to obtain a Massachusetts license to carry (“CCW”) if they wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights while visiting or passing through Massachusetts.₂ On the contrary,laws historically exempted travelers from such local restrictions. Americans of earlier eras knew that requiring citizens visiting another state to give up the right to bear arms was untenable.

Particularly interesting was where the brief pointed out the planitiff’s misleading the court by chopping off quotes from a statute, to give the opposite meaning of what the statute actually stated. The brief also eviserates the brief submitted by Everytown and the Brady campaign as including suicide data to pump up their argument that people coming from another state make Massachusetts less safe.

A brief was submitted by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The brief is 48 pages long.  The arguments are similar to those of the previous brief. It is notable the NRA included reference to infamous Dred Scott case of 1857, on page 30.

The Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) submitted a 49 page brief. An important part of this brief, which this correspondent did not see in the other briefs, was Donnel was charged under the 2021 law, which was a “May Issue” law for non-residents. May issue laws were struck down in the Bruen decision. The GOAL brief also goes into detail how the law is “tremendously burdensome to a non-resident”. It is an important distinction. The GOAL brief makes clear arguments to show Donnell has standing for this case.

A brief has been submitted by Jay Edward Simkin.  The brief is interesting. Edward Simkin submits the brief pro-se, on his own, without counsel. The brief goes into extensive detail about Massachusetts history of firearms law. The historical part of the brief is an excellent read in itself. It is 130 pages long, but 90 pages are submitted as an appendix. The actual brief is only 40 pages. Simkin had his out-of-state license in Massachusetts restored by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2013, after Massachusetts authorities refused to renew it in 2009. Simkin has been a Federal Firearms License in Nashua, New Hampshire for over 30 years. The brief is well written and argued.

Analysis:  The case is straightforward if the court follows the guidance set forward by Bruen. There are no historical laws from the founding era which prevented travelers from carrying weapons from one colony to another colony, or later, from one state to other states. The tradition is travelers were commonly exempted from carry laws. The excessive burdens imposed by laws requiring a separate carry license for every state are impractical and unreasonable for travelers, and violate the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. As a practical matter, although it carries no weight in the Constitutional question, people who are legally allowed to carry in their home state are not a threat to law abiding people in other states.

©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch