Executive summary: A Vermont resident, apparently with a carry permit, though I do not think they are required in Vermont, apparently accidentally wandered into Taxachusetts and got arrested for concealed carry without a permit because his Vermont permit was not recognized by that state. However, a State Appellate Court dismissed the charges based on the Bruen test of firearms regulation Constitutionality, due to the fact that there is no historical equivalent law requiring such a permit that existed in 1791, as the Bruen decision instructed. Unfortunately, but also predictably, there are many states and even Judges who are trying as much weasel language as possible to somehow get out of or around the standards the Supreme Court mandated be used when testing the Constitutionality of firearm restrictions, but not this time. This particular Judge took those instructions to heart and actually followed them in coming to his decision to dismiss the charges, and his reasoning was simple... The conduct of carrying a concealed weapon definitely implicates the 2A, and as such, the burden of proof shifted to the state of MA to demonstrate they had an equivalent LAW at the time the 2A was ratified, which was 1791. There being no law they could point to that existed then, the Judge dismissed the charges of carrying concealed without a permit, and these sorts of decisions have a way of 'going viral' insofar as they become precedent for future persons to use to either avoid being charged for the same crime in the first place, or to have them dismissed if they are erroneously filed in the first place. Taken to it's natural conclusion, this may very well end up with either the several States being required to honor ALL other States permits under the full faith and credit clause, or possibly even invalidating the entire licensing scheme altogether, perhaps making them completely unnecessary anywhere in the United States. I would be fine either way, though I prefer permitless carry for qualified persons, which is everyone who is of age and has not lost their firearm rights due to their own actions. This is good news. More at the video below:
Under the protection of the 2nd Amendment, you have a right to carry a firearm in every state. Article. IV. Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. AMENDMENT XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 50 state reciprocity should have been a fact long ago.
That would indeed be a remarkable outcome! So am I understanding Bruen correctly in that the court is saying the we must recognize gun rights AS THEY WERE understood and enforced when the amendment was added?
Probably an oversimplification, but yes. What Bruen said is that when it comes to legal situations that implicate the 2A, the government must demonstrate that whatever it is they're trying to do, in this case successfully prosecute a guy for being in MA with a concealed handgun but no MA carry permit, they have to demonstrate that an equivalent law existed at the time of ratification, which is 1791. Which is why I have repeatedly said that virtually all current and proposed gun control measures in the USA, including many that have been on the books for decades, like the NFA or FOPA, are in danger of being cancelled on Constitutional grounds, as happened in this case. This is great news, but I cannot afford the cost of winning a test case, and I wouldn't do well in prison if I lost, so I'm not going to go prancing around Boston with a sidearm. Then again, it's been well over a decade since I set foot in that city, and have no real reason to go now, so not much has really changed for me personally. However, this may mean a big change for MA residents who want a carry permit, but have previously been unable to get one.
