Massachusetts High Court Provides Cover for Unconstitutional Gun Laws
On March 11, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) released decisions on two non-resident licensing cases: Commonwealth v. Donnell and Commonwealth v. Marquis. GOAL and many others filed Amicus briefs on the cases as they should have been landmark civil rights decisions following the Bruen decision.
The Donnell case involved a defendant that was arrested by police for operating under the influence following a collision on 495. During the stop, police found a handgun and ammunition in a duffle bag in the trunk of the vehicle. As a result, Donnell was charged with possession without a license. The local state district judge dismissed the case citing Bruen with the case then ending up with the SJC with oral arguments last September.
The Marquis case also involved a defendant who was arrested by state police after a motor vehicle accident when he voluntarily declared that he had a firearm on his person. He was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm where the state district judge again dismissed the case, again citing Bruen. The case then ended up before the SJC.
Interestingly, the cases, both released on the same day, reference each other in their analyses. This tandem release of these two cases is a one-two punch of disappointment for gun owners in and out of the Commonwealth; with one case, Donnell, striking down the old licensing regime and the other case, Marquis, holding up the current licensing regime.
In August of 2022, the legislature hid an amendment in a technology bond bill that was sold as “codifying” suitability regarding licensing. The decision even goes so far as to quote Chairman Michael Day from a State House News article, when he informed his colleagues that the law change was necessary to “comply with Bruen.” The amendment ostensibly changed Massachusetts’ firearm licensing scheme from “may” to “shall” issue. The problem was that it still kept subjective standards in place: “suitability.” Suitability still allows licensing authorities to essentially create their own standards, completely flying in the face of the spirit of Bruen.
In Marquis, the SJC ruled that the current licensing standard per Ch. 135, is constitutional because the law states it is “shall issue.” The Court did not seem to care that the standard was in name only as suitability still applies.
To back up this overtly unconstitutional ruling, the SJC then ruled in Donnell that the laws in place prior to prior to the 2022 amendment were unconstitutional. In doing so, justifying that the 2022 change “fixed” it. These combined decisions were very well orchestrated, with one backing up the other.
While these two cases were supposed to be about non-resident licensing, they were instead used by the SJC to declare suitability to be constitutional by simply replacing the term “may issue” with the term “shall issue” in the licensing scheme. One doesn’t usually see this kind of sleight of hand outside of Las Vegas.
So thanks to an activist court, packed with former Governor Charlie Baker appointees, we are stuck with suitability for at least a bit longer. GOAL will continue to seek out and support viable cases to attack laws and decisions.
On March 11, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) released decisions on two non-resident licensing cases: Commonwealth v. Donnell and Commonwealth v. Marquis. GOAL and many others filed Amicus briefs on the cases as they should have been landmark civil rights decisions following the Bruen decision.
The Donnell case involved a defendant that was arrested by police for operating under the influence following a collision on 495. During the stop, police found a handgun and ammunition in a duffle bag in the trunk of the vehicle. As a result, Donnell was charged with possession without a license. The local state district judge dismissed the case citing Bruen with the case then ending up with the SJC with oral arguments last September.
The Marquis case also involved a defendant who was arrested by state police after a motor vehicle accident when he voluntarily declared that he had a firearm on his person. He was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm where the state district judge again dismissed the case, again citing Bruen. The case then ended up before the SJC.
Interestingly, the cases, both released on the same day, reference each other in their analyses. This tandem release of these two cases is a one-two punch of disappointment for gun owners in and out of the Commonwealth; with one case, Donnell, striking down the old licensing regime and the other case, Marquis, holding up the current licensing regime.
In August of 2022, the legislature hid an amendment in a technology bond bill that was sold as “codifying” suitability regarding licensing. The decision even goes so far as to quote Chairman Michael Day from a State House News article, when he informed his colleagues that the law change was necessary to “comply with Bruen.” The amendment ostensibly changed Massachusetts’ firearm licensing scheme from “may” to “shall” issue. The problem was that it still kept subjective standards in place: “suitability.” Suitability still allows licensing authorities to essentially create their own standards, completely flying in the face of the spirit of Bruen.
In Marquis, the SJC ruled that the current licensing standard per Ch. 135, is constitutional because the law states it is “shall issue.” The Court did not seem to care that the standard was in name only as suitability still applies.
To back up this overtly unconstitutional ruling, the SJC then ruled in Donnell that the laws in place prior to prior to the 2022 amendment were unconstitutional. In doing so, justifying that the 2022 change “fixed” it. These combined decisions were very well orchestrated, with one backing up the other.
While these two cases were supposed to be about non-resident licensing, they were instead used by the SJC to declare suitability to be constitutional by simply replacing the term “may issue” with the term “shall issue” in the licensing scheme. One doesn’t usually see this kind of sleight of hand outside of Las Vegas.
So thanks to an activist court, packed with former Governor Charlie Baker appointees, we are stuck with suitability for at least a bit longer. GOAL will continue to seek out and support viable cases to attack laws and decisions.
