- Free Consultation: 617.936.0201 Call us in Boston or Quincy
Massachusetts Gun Licensing After Bruen: Nonresidents and Travelers
By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center | Massachusetts Criminal Defense Since 1995
Many people believe that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), ended state licensing of firearms. Bruen did not end state licensing of firearms.
In a series of 2025 decisions, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the current licensing scheme and confirmed that carrying a firearm without a Massachusetts license remains a crime. This post explains those decisions and what they mean for a visitor, a traveler, or a new resident. This post supplements the firm’s pages on Massachusetts firearms charges and on firearms offenses for nonresidents and out-of-state travelers.
What Bruen Decided
In Bruen, the United States Supreme Court struck down a New York licensing regime that gave officials open-ended discretion to deny a license to a qualified applicant. The Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home. The Court also held that a firearm regulation is valid only if it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. In doing so, the Court called into question discretionary, may-issue licensing standards, but it did not prohibit licensing itself.
The Massachusetts Statute
After Bruen, Massachusetts replaced its discretionary standard with a shall-issue standard effective August 10, 2022. A resident applies for a license to carry under G. L. c. 140, § 131, and a nonresident applies for a temporary license under G. L. c. 140, § 131F. Under both provisions, a license is issued to an applicant who is not a prohibited person and is not determined to be unsuitable. Carrying a firearm without the required license is an offense under G. L. c. 269, § 10.
A license can also be suspended without any licensing decision at all. Under M.G.L. c. 140, §§ 131R to 131Y a judge may order the immediate suspension of a license to carry and the surrender of all firearms through an extreme risk protection order. The judge may issue the order on a preponderance of the evidence and with no criminal charge. The petitioner may be a family or household member of the respondent or the licensing authority itself.
The petitioner may also be a law enforcement officer who dealt with the respondent within the preceding 30 days, or a health care provider who treated the respondent within the preceding 6 months. A principal or assistant principal of an elementary or secondary school, or an administrator of a college or university where the respondent is enrolled, may also be the petitioner.
The 2025 Decisions
The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the current nonresident scheme in Commonwealth v. Marquis, 495 Mass. 434 (2025). The court held that the shall-issue nonresident statute is facially consistent with the Second Amendment. The purpose of a shall-issue standard is to keep firearms from demonstrably dangerous persons. That purpose is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. In a companion case, Commonwealth v. Donnell, 495 Mass. 471 (2025), the court held that the older may-issue version of the nonresident statute, in effect before August 10, 2022, was facially unconstitutional.
The court reasoned that the older version gave the colonel of the State police unbounded discretion. The court also held that the discretionary language could not be severed from the rest of the statute.
The court addressed the resident scheme in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 496 Mass. 627 (2025). The court held that the resident licensing scheme is not facially unconstitutional, because it applies validly to persons the Commonwealth may disarm, including a person convicted of a felony or a violent crime. The court confirmed that unlicensed possession of a firearm remains a crime in Massachusetts. The court also limited its earlier decision in Donnell, because the court in Donnell had not accounted for valid applications to persons the Commonwealth may disarm.
The Supreme Court Declined to Review Marquis
Marquis sought review in the Supreme Court of the United States. Twenty-five states, the Cato Institute, and the Gun Owners’ Action League filed briefs supporting the petition. The Court denied certiorari on January 12, 2026. Marquis v. Massachusetts, No. 25-5280.
The Supreme Court decides nothing on the merits and sets no precedent when it denies certiorari. The Supreme Judicial Court’s holding remains binding. The shall-issue nonresident scheme remains in force. A defendant charged today cannot expect the Supreme Court to have changed the rule since March 2025.
What the Commonwealth Must Prove at Trial
Bruen changed what a prosecutor must prove, not only what a Legislature may enact. In Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666 (2023), the Supreme Judicial Court held that the absence of a valid license is an element of unlawful possession of a firearm under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a). The Commonwealth must prove the absence of a license in its case in chief.
The jury must also be instructed on that element. In Guardado, the Supreme Judicial Court overruled the earlier rule, under which licensure was a defense the defendant had to raise. The court applied the new rule to cases that were active or pending on direct appeal as of June 23, 2022, the date Bruen was decided.
On rehearing, in Commonwealth v. Guardado, 493 Mass. 1 (2023), the court held that the remedy is a new trial rather than an acquittal. The Commonwealth had no reason under the law as it then stood to introduce evidence about licensure, so a retrial does not offend the prohibition against double jeopardy.
For a nonresident, the licensing element is the same. The Commonwealth must prove the absence of a Massachusetts license. The proof is a Massachusetts licensing record. Holding a permit from another state does not satisfy the statute. Holding that permit also does not relieve the Commonwealth of proving the licensing element. Counsel should require proof of the licensing element rather than treat that element as established.
The Supreme Judicial Court Has Also Applied Bruen to Strike Down Massachusetts Law
In Commonwealth v. Canjura, 494 Mass. 508 (2024), the Supreme Judicial Court held the prohibition on carrying switchblade knives in M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(b) unconstitutional, because the Commonwealth identified no historical tradition of regulating folding pocketknives. In Donnell, the Supreme Judicial Court struck the older nonresident licensing scheme on the same reasoning.
Massachusetts weapons statutes can fail the text and history test, as the switchblade prohibition did in Canjura. A Massachusetts statute is subject to the text and history inquiry. The question in a given case is whether the Commonwealth can meet its historical burden on the specific provision charged.
Rahimi and How the Test Is Applied
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), upheld the federal prohibition on firearm possession by a person subject to a qualifying domestic violence restraining order. Rahimi also explained how Bruen is to be applied. Rahimi repeated the statement in Bruen that a modern regulation needs a historical analogue, not a “historical twin.” The historical-analogue standard is why most Massachusetts firearm regulations have survived review while a small number have failed review. A challenge has to meet that standard.
The Federal Challenges to Chapter 135
Three decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit apply to the federal challenges. The First Circuit decided the last of the three on July 21, 2026.
In Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, 95 F.4th 38 (1st Cir. 2024), the First Circuit held that a ten round magazine limit very likely fits within the historical tradition of restricting especially dangerous arms.
In Capen v. Campbell, 134 F.4th 660 (1st Cir. 2025), the First Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against the Massachusetts assault weapon and large capacity feeding device restrictions.
Recchia v. Campbell, No. 25-1817 (1st Cir. July 21, 2026), is the decision most likely to affect a nonresident. The plaintiff was an out-of-state firearms business owner who challenged the assault-style firearm and large capacity feeding device provisions of chapter 135, codified at M.G.L. c. 140, §§ 121 and 131M(a).
The plaintiff raised three theories, based on the Second Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The First Circuit held the Second Amendment claim foreclosed by Capen under the law of the circuit doctrine. The First Circuit also treated the equal protection claim as subsumed in the Second Amendment analysis. Several of the plaintiff’s arguments, including that the restricted firearms are in common use, were raised for the first time in a reply brief and were waived.
The Nonresident Arguments That Remain Open
Two theories specific to nonresidents have been raised without being decided on their merits.
The first theory is based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause of article IV of the United States Constitution, which limits a state’s power to treat citizens of other states differently. The District Court considered the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Recchia after the plaintiff referred to privileges and immunities in opposing a motion to dismiss. The First Circuit did not decide the privileges and immunities question. The Supreme Judicial Court has not addressed the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the licensing context.
The second theory is based on the dormant Commerce Clause, which the plaintiff in Recchia raised on behalf of an out-of-state firearms business rather than an individual traveler. The dormant Commerce Clause claim is about commerce between states rather than about the right to carry a firearm. The question whether the claim applies to an individual nonresident is untested.
Neither theory is a defense to a pending charge today. Both theories are noted here because a nonresident who is told that Bruen settled the question is being told something inaccurate in both directions. The Second Amendment challenge to the current scheme has failed. The other constitutional questions have not been answered.
What the Licensing Decisions Mean for a Visitor, Traveler, or New Resident
A person who carries a firearm in Massachusetts must still hold a Massachusetts license. A license or permit from another state does not satisfy that requirement. A nonresident who wants to carry a firearm must apply for a temporary license under § 131F, unless an exemption in G. L. c. 140, § 129C applies.
Federal law provides a narrow safe-passage defense for a traveler who is transporting an unloaded firearm through Massachusetts between two places where the firearm may lawfully be possessed. Neither the firearm nor any ammunition may be readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment. In a vehicle with no compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, the firearm or ammunition must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
A traveler who arrives at Logan Airport and discovers a firearm in a bag should not assume that declaring it to an airline avoids Massachusetts charges, because Massachusetts law still applies. The firearms page for nonresidents and travelers explains the lawful options and the defenses in detail.
Attorney Serpa defends firearms charges across the Massachusetts District Courts and the Boston Municipal Court. For a confidential consultation, call 617.936.0201.
Key Takeaways
- Carrying a firearm in Massachusetts without a Massachusetts license is a crime. A permit from another state does not satisfy the license requirement.
- The current shall-issue nonresident scheme is facially constitutional. Commonwealth v. Marquis, 495 Mass. 434 (2025). The Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 12, 2026.
- The Supreme Judicial Court held the pre-August 10, 2022 may-issue nonresident scheme facially unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. Donnell, 495 Mass. 471 (2025). In Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 496 Mass. 627 (2025), the Supreme Judicial Court abrogated Donnell to the extent that Donnell did not account for the bar on licenses for persons convicted of a felony or a violent crime.
- The resident scheme is not facially unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 496 Mass. 627 (2025).
- The Commonwealth must prove the absence of a license as an element under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a). Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666 (2023). The remedy for the omission of that element at trial is a new trial, not an acquittal. Guardado, 493 Mass. 1 (2023).
- A Massachusetts weapons statute can still fail the text and history test. Commonwealth v. Canjura, 494 Mass. 508 (2024).
- Federal challenges to the chapter 135 firearm restrictions have failed in the First Circuit. Capen v. Campbell, 134 F.4th 660 (1st Cir. 2025); Recchia v. Campbell, No. 25-1817 (1st Cir. July 21, 2026).
Related Serpa Law Office Resources
We Accept the Following Payment Solutions
