Massachusetts Top Court Treads Lightly Around Gun, Weapon Rights

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is taking a conservative approach to interpreting weapons regulations under US Supreme Court guidance, casting doubt on state Democrats’ ability to stringently restrict possession of guns and other self-defense tools.

State supreme courts are two years into building out a body of case law after the Supreme Court raised the bar for states to prove their weapons regulations are constitutional. So far, the Bay State’s top court has yet to push the envelope.

Massachusetts has some of the strictest weapons laws in the country, so the Supreme Judicial Court’s rulings are establishing a ceiling on the kinds of regulations that are allowed under the 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“I’m very disappointed that they’re just rolling over and replicating what the Supreme Court has done,” said Renée Landers, a professor at Suffolk University Law School. “It’s just a little too passive.”

The Supreme Judicial Court may be keeping a low profile after having its 2015 decision that stun guns aren’t protected by the Second Amendment get torn apart by the high court just a year later. The state justices are likely trying to avoid a similar rebuke, a constitutional lawyer in the attorney general’s office said.

‘Long, Hard Look’

The Supreme Judicial Court’s latest Second Amendment ruling held that Massachusetts’ ban on carrying switchblades was unconstitutional because the right to bear arms includes more than just firearms.

The ruling is “a pleasant surprise” and demonstrates that the court “appears to be taking a very deliberate, long, hard look at our laws” in light of Bruen, said Jason Guida, a firearms attorney who represents gun owners and industry groups.

Lawrence Friedman, a professor at New England Law, said the switchblade opinion reflects the “whole new world for constitutional interpretation” on the Second Amendment. Bruen instructs judges to rely on the history and tradition of firearms regulation to decide whether a law is constitutional.

“If you went up to somebody on the street and explained to them that knives are now protected under the Second Amendment, they would think you were insane,” Friedman said.

The attorney general’s office said it’s expecting gun rights groups to try to use the decision to unwind other weapons regulations even though it was fairly narrow and specific to switchblades.

The justices’ reasoning “seems to carry over also to handguns,” some of which Massachusetts strictly regulates despite their availability in other states, Guida said.

Landers said that while she understands how the court reached its decision, she would’ve liked for the justices to use their opinion as a vehicle to urge the US Supreme Court to reexamine its stance on Second Amendment issues.

The Supreme Judicial Court is also currently weighing a challenge to Massachusetts’s ability to enforce its gun laws against New Hampshire residents bringing weapons across state lines. At oral argument earlier this month, the justices appeared unexpectedly skeptical of the state’s mandate that non-residents get a temporary license to carry weapons, the attorney general’s office lawyer said.

The case asks “exactly the sort of question that could attract the US Supreme Court’s attention depending on how the Massachusetts court rules,” Friedman said.

“The Commonwealth tends to have stricter gun regulations than other states, so if there are justices on the Supreme Court who are unhappy with a particular ruling of the SJC, it’s going to come to their attention more quickly than it would in another jurisdiction,” Friedman said.

More Challenges Coming

Gun rights groups are also mounting federal challenges to Massachusetts’ new gun legislation, which was signed into law in July and takes effect Oct. 23.

The new law aims to stymie the use of untraceable ghost guns, broadens the definition of assault weapons that are banned, and criminalizes possessing parts such as bump stocks that are used to make weapons more deadly. It also makes illegal possession of a firearm in spaces such as government buildings, courts, and polling places.

Two lawsuits have already been filed seeking to block enforcement of new firearms training requirements for people applying for licenses to carry. The National Rifle Association is also working to wage additional challenges, said Justin Davis, one of the organization’s state directors.

Davis said gun owners and manufacturers have faced “a lot of confusion and a lot of anxiety” about how the law will be implemented.

“People have a right to know how it is going to be enforced before they break the law,” Guida said.

The attorney general’s office said it’s working on issuing guidance that will clarify gun owner’s rights and responsibilities before the law takes effect, which it expects to quell their concerns.

David Pucino, deputy chief counsel and legal director at Giffords Law Center, said litigation is “really an inevitability, and that’s not because of anything to do with the constitutionality of the gun laws.” He said gun rights groups are trying to out-compete each other to get their names on as many lawsuits as possible, and their strategy is “to challenge any gun law that they possibly can.”

Davis said the law “does nothing to address violent crime” and could put law-abiding gun owners at risk.

“It’s a really dire situation,” Davis said. “This won’t go unchecked.”