- 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 | 30 Years Massachusetts Criminal Defense
A common belief holds 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. It did not. 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. It 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 right to carry a firearm for self-defense extends outside the home, and 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
Massachusetts had already 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, on a preponderance of the evidence and with no criminal charge. The petitioner may be the licensing authority itself, 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.
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. A shall-issue standard keeps firearms from demonstrably dangerous persons, and 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, because it gave the colonel of the State police unbounded discretion, and that 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, and it confirmed that unlicensed possession of a firearm remains a crime in Massachusetts. The court also limited its earlier decision in Donnell, because the court there had not accounted for those valid applications.
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.
A denial of certiorari resolves nothing on the merits and sets no precedent. The practical consequence is still worth stating plainly. The Supreme Judicial Court’s holding stands, the shall-issue nonresident scheme remains in force, and 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 essential element of unlawful possession of a firearm under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a). The Commonwealth must prove it in its case in chief, and the jury must be instructed on it. That 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. Because the Commonwealth had no reason under the law as it then stood to introduce evidence about licensure, a retrial does not offend the prohibition against double jeopardy.
For a nonresident the element is the same one. The Commonwealth must prove the absence of a Massachusetts license, and the proof is a Massachusetts licensing record. Holding a permit from another state does not satisfy the statute, and it also does not relieve the Commonwealth of proving the element. Counsel should require that proof rather than treat it as established.
Bruen Has Also Struck Down Massachusetts Law
Bruen is not only a shield for the Commonwealth. 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. Donnell struck the older nonresident licensing scheme on the same reasoning.
Two Massachusetts weapons provisions have now failed the test in three years. A Massachusetts statute is not immune from the text and history inquiry, and 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, and it explained how Bruen is to be applied. A modern statute needs a historical analogue, not a historical twin. That refinement is why most Massachusetts firearm regulations have survived review while a small number have not, and it is the standard a challenge has to meet.
The Federal Challenges to Chapter 135
Three decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit frame the federal side, and the most recent one was decided three weeks ago.
Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, 95 F.4th 38 (1st Cir. 2024), held that a ten round magazine limit very likely fits within the historical tradition of restricting especially dangerous arms.
Capen v. Campbell, 134 F.4th 660 (1st Cir. 2025), 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 one that matters most to 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). He raised three theories: 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, and it treated the equal protection claim as subsumed in the Second Amendment analysis. Several of the plaintiff’s strongest 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 is 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 that clause in Recchia after the plaintiff referred to privileges and immunities in opposing a motion to dismiss, and the First Circuit did not decide the question. The Supreme Judicial Court has not addressed it in the licensing context.
The second is the dormant Commerce Clause, which the plaintiff in Recchia raised on behalf of an out-of-state firearms business rather than an individual traveler. That claim is about commerce between states rather than about the right to carry, and its reach for an individual nonresident is untested.
Neither theory is a defense to a pending charge today. Both 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 This Means for a Visitor, Traveler, or New Resident
The practical rule does not change. A person who carries a firearm in Massachusetts must hold a Massachusetts license, and a license or permit from another state does not satisfy that requirement. A nonresident who wants to carry must apply for a temporary license under § 131F. Federal law provides a narrow safe-passage defense for a traveler who is transporting an unloaded firearm, locked and separate from its ammunition, through Massachusetts between two places where the firearm may lawfully be possessed. 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, and a permit from another state does not satisfy the 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 pre-August 10, 2022 may-issue nonresident scheme was facially unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. Donnell, 495 Mass. 471 (2025). The date of the alleged offense decides which holding applies.
- 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 is a new trial, not an acquittal. Guardado, 493 Mass. 1 (2023).
- A Massachusetts weapons statute can still fail the 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
