Massachusetts Faces New Federal Lawsuit Over Non-Resident Carry Permits

Lawson v. Campbell Could Be a Turning Point for Gun Rights in Massachusetts

The battle for the Second Amendment has taken a new front in Massachusetts. On August 13, 2025, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) filed a federal lawsuit—Lawson et al. v. Campbell et al.—challenging the Commonwealth’s unconstitutional treatment of non-resident firearm license applicants.

This case could have major national implications, not just for Bay State gun owners, but for anyone who values the right to carry when traveling across state lines.

The Plaintiffs

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Russell Lawson, Jr., Brian Burns, and Christopher Penta, three non-resident applicants forced to navigate Massachusetts’ broken system, along with two powerhouse organizations—SAF and GOAL.

The defendants include Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, Commissioner Terrence Reidy, and senior licensing officials. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Denise Casper in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts.

What’s Wrong With Massachusetts’ Non-Resident Licensing Scheme?

Unlike residents, who receive six-year licenses, non-residents are forced into a one-year permit system with no grace period for renewal. That means if the state drags its feet—and it often does—law-abiding citizens can suddenly find themselves without lawful carry rights for weeks or months.

Key burdens under fire in this lawsuit include:

Excessive delays: Applications often take six months or more to process. It is well worth noting that I frequently receive calls from Massachusetts RESIDENTS who are experiencing the same types of delays.
Mandatory in-person appearances: Non-residents must physically appear at a licensing office, even if they live hours away or out of state.
Unequal treatment: Residents get six-year permits; non-residents get only one year, creating a system that discriminates against travelers and visiting workers.

In effect, Massachusetts is punishing non-residents by putting up roadblocks that turn the right to carry into a privilege granted at the state’s convenience. This “privilege” is precisely how all branches of Massachusetts government continue to treat the 2nd Amendment for both non-residents and residents alike. This is despite the Bruen decision.

The Constitutional Challenge

The plaintiffs argue that Massachusetts’ scheme violates both the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment:

Second Amendment: The Supreme Court has been clear in Bruen (2022) that the right to bear arms for self-defense extends beyond the home. Arbitrary delays and annual renewals function as a de facto denial of that right.
Fourteenth Amendment: By treating non-residents as second-class citizens, Massachusetts violates equal protection and due process guarantees.

The lawsuit seeks to strike down these discriminatory practices and force the Commonwealth to bring its licensing system in line with constitutional standards.

Why This Case Matters

Massachusetts is notorious for its hostility toward gun rights, but the issues raised here extend far beyond one state. If Massachusetts can burden non-residents with impossible hurdles, what’s to stop other states from following suit?

This case presents an opportunity to:

Reaffirm the national scope of the Second Amendment—your rights don’t stop at the state line.
Expose discriminatory licensing schemes that punish outsiders while protecting entrenched state bureaucracies.
Challenge government delays that effectively nullify constitutional rights through administrative gamesmanship.

A Step Toward Real Freedom

Gun owners have long warned that “may-issue” style discretion didn’t die with Bruen—it simply changed form. Massachusetts’ non-resident licensing process is may-issue by delay, paperwork, and expiration date.

By taking this case to federal court, SAF, GOAL, and the plaintiffs are sending a clear message: The Second Amendment is not optional. It’s not conditional. And it doesn’t belong to bureaucrats—it belongs to the people.

A Final Thought

Lawson v. Campbell is more than a lawsuit—it’s part of a growing pushback against states that think they can outmaneuver the Constitution. Whether you live in Massachusetts or are just passing through, this case is about ensuring that your right to keep and bear arms travels with you.

I’ll be watching this case closely, because a victory here could set the stage for nationwide challenges against similar schemes. Nationally, the Second Amendment is on the move—and the momentum in the courts is on our side. It is time to bring that same momentum here to the Commonwealth.

MA GUN LAWYER