A federal judge has allowed two parts of a challenge to Massachusetts' nonresident license-to-carry process to proceed, but dismissed two broader theories. In an August 28 memorandum and order, Chief U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper denied the state's jurisdictional motion, kept an as-applied Second Amendment claim and an equal-protection claim alive, dismissed the plaintiffs' facial Second Amendment challenge, and dismissed their Privileges and Immunities Clause claim. The ruling decides a motion to dismiss, not whether the licensing process is unconstitutional.
The claims that remain
Lawson v. Campbell, No. 1:25-cv-12268-DJC, was filed in the District of Massachusetts by Russell Lawson Jr., Brian Burns, Christopher Penta, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Gun Owners Action League. They sued four state officials in their official capacities and alleged that delays in processing nonresident licenses violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, equal protection, and Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause. Massachusetts moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Casper's order lets the case continue on narrower grounds than the complaint sought.
Invalid Date
More Articles
Massachusetts Nonresident Carry-License Delay Challenge Survives in Part | GunsNation
The surviving Second Amendment theory is as applied to the three individual plaintiffs. The court treated the complaint's allegations as true at this stage and found it plausible that delays, combined with the lack of a grace period for nonresidents, could effectively deny public carry. The alleged delays at least doubled the statutory 40-day decision period. The judge did not set a bright-line maximum processing time, decide that any particular delay is unconstitutional, or enter an injunction changing the licensing process. Discovery may now test whether the alleged delays reflect ordinary administration or an abusive application of a shall-issue system.
The equal-protection claim also survived. The plaintiffs allege that delayed renewals expose nonresidents to criminal penalties during license gaps, while Massachusetts residents receive a grace period. The court found that allegation sufficient, for now, to plead a penalty on interstate travel and different treatment based on residency. Massachusetts argued for rational-basis review, but the court applied strict-scrutiny analysis at the pleading stage because the as-applied Second Amendment claim also remained viable. The state had not addressed in its dismissal briefing how the challenged features were narrowly tailored to its public-safety interest.
What the judge dismissed
The facial Second Amendment claim failed because a facial challenge must show that the licensing regime is invalid in all its applications. Casper described Massachusetts' shall-issue system as presumptively constitutional and reasoned that some applications could involve only brief delays that do not create constitutional harm. The ruling therefore leaves the nonresident licensing statutes in place and rejects the contention that their structure is unconstitutional across the board. The court did not proceed to a historical-tradition analysis on that facial theory because the plaintiffs did not overcome the initial presumption.
The court also dismissed the Privileges and Immunities Clause count. It said the plaintiffs had not identified a decision recognizing public firearm carry as an Article IV privilege fundamental to the vitality of the nation. That dismissal is distinct from the surviving equal-protection theory, which focuses on alleged penalties tied to travel and residency. The split result matters when reading the Second Amendment Foundation's announcement: the organization accurately reports that the dismissal effort failed in part, but the state also won dismissal of two claims.
The process owners still face
The order describes the current nonresident route as a one-year temporary license issued through the state police. Applicants pay $100 for a new or renewal application, new applicants generally must complete a Massachusetts Basic Firearms Safety Course, and annual fingerprint background checks are required. New applicants must appear in person at the Firearms Records Bureau in Chelsea. The statute provides intermediate seven-day and 30-day steps and directs approval or denial within 40 days, while the state website says nonresident processing may take up to 90 days. Resident licenses last six years, while nonresident licenses usually last one year and do not carry the same lapse grace period.
Those rules have not changed because of this order. A nonresident without a Massachusetts license remains limited to the exceptions described by state law, including specified hunting, range, show, and locked-container travel circumstances for a person holding a qualifying home-state license. The decision does not extend an expired license, create reciprocity, waive an interview, refund a fee, or authorize carry during a pending application. It also does not resolve the unimplemented live-fire training requirement noted in the complaint. Owners should separate the lawsuit's allegations and this procedural ruling from the compliance rules currently in force.
The next phase is litigation on the as-applied Second Amendment and equal-protection counts. The individual applications were no longer pending when the motion was decided, but the court held that alleged annual delays could recur yet evade review because nonresident licenses require yearly renewal. The order records processing periods of 95 and 287 days and interview waits of 131 and 101 days from the parties' filings. Evidence developed in discovery, later summary-judgment motions, a settlement, or an appeal could determine whether those delays support relief. No trial date, injunction hearing, or deadline for a final merits ruling appears in the order.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
