ThinkingAfield.org

In a pivotal procedural win, a federal judge in Massachusetts has denied the government’s attempt to dismiss a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) lawsuit challenging the state’s process for non-residents to acquire a license to carry (LTC).

As SAF’s original complaint in Lawson v. Campbell explained, non-residents of Massachusetts are forced to go through an arduous process to even receive their LTC and are then required to renew the permit each year. Often, those applying or renewing their “temporary” LTC must wait as long as three months or longer before receiving an in-person interview appointment, which is required by state law before a non-resident can be considered for a permit. This new lawsuit asks the court to remove these barriers and prevent further constitutional violations of non-residents who wish to exercise their full Second Amendment rights in Massachusetts.

“Massachusetts begrudgingly makes carry permits available for out-of-state residents but makes the process of acquiring and renewing them on an annual basis unconstitutionally burdensome,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Delays of multiple months for both new applications and renewals – which are required every year – are commonplace, and without any grace period for those folks with pending renewals, our members who are subjected to these delays have their rights extinguished for extended periods of time year after year.”

Joining SAF in the lawsuit are the Gun Owners Action League and three individuals who have been, and remain, at the mercy of the permit application and renewal process.

“Because the right to carry is a federally recognized right, a state government cannot force someone to give up their right to keep and bear arms just because they crossed a state line,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Constitution doesn’t know state lines, and neither do our rights. Permits available on paper, but nearly impossible to maintain in practice, do not meet the clearly articulated demands of the Second Amendment. We are optimistic the Court will agree and fully restore the Second Amendment rights of non-residents who wish to travel and spend time in Massachusetts.” Read more

Following closely on the heels of celebrating its 52nd anniversary, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed their opening brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in cases challenging assault weapons bans in Cook County, Illinois and Connecticut.

On June 30, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two SAF cases – Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins – challenging the prohibitions of many commonly owned rifles, including the ubiquitous AR-15, in Cook County, Ill., and Connecticut. While legal and broadly adopted by Americans all over the country for a litany of lawful purposes – including self-defense – a minority of states have sought to outright ban the possession of these types of firearms. The question presented in Viramontes and Grant is whether those states may categorically ban a widely defined class of the most commonly possessed firearms in the country. SAF’s opening brief explains precisely why the Second Amendment, and well-established Supreme Court caselaw, have already concluded that no, they may not. Read more

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico has granted summary judgment and entered final judgment holding New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period unconstitutional in Ortega v. Grisham. The case was brought by the National Rifle Association and Mountain States Legal Foundation, in partnership with the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

In response to the ruling, the NRA released the following statement: Read more