On September 9, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held oral arguments in the cases of Commonwealth v Donnell. Another similar case in which a New Hampshire citizen worked in Massachusetts, Marquis, was consolidated with the Donnell case. Both cases involve New Hampshire citizens who had firearms in their automobiles in Massachusetts

The case concerns whether Massachusetts can impose undue burdens on people from out of state who can legally carry weapons in their home state. It appears the court has received all the arguments in this case and will now consider them and file an opinion and order. It is not known what the process will take. In the case of Commonwealth v Canjura, the Massachusetts Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 4, 2023, and issued their decision on August 27, 2024, a period of nine months. If the same time is used for the Donnell case, we may see an opinion issued in June of 2025. The decision would straddle the presidential election.

Commonwealth v Canjura was decided by a unanimous Massachusetts Supreme Court, which did a good job following the guidance issued by the US Supreme Court in the Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen decisions.  All of the Massachusetts Supreme Court Justices who sat on the Canjura case are sitting on the Donnell case. One more Supreme Court Justice has been added to the Donnell case, Justice Gabriella Wolohojian, appointed by Governor Healy in April of 2024.

As considered in a previous AmmoLand article, a number of high-powered amicus briefs have been filed in this case. From August 19 to September 9, the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the CATO Institute, the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition filed additional amicus briefs.

The oral arguments last an hour and six minutes. They were originally scheduled for 15 minutes for each side. In this correspondent’s opinion, all the attorneys did well with what they had. The questions asked by the Supreme Court justices were skilled and of high caliber. Here are a few of the issues considered:

• Does state power to make criminal laws override the fundamental right to keep and bear arms?
• Can a state require time to vet people to see if they are dangerous, thus temporarily disarming them?
• Can a state treat non-residents substantially differently from residents regarding fundamental constitutional rights?
• Will upholding the lower court decision to invalidate the non-resident part of Massachusetts law inevitably lead to nationwide reciprocity of carry permits, at the minimum, and perhaps, Constitutional Carry for all states?
• Can states ban “assault weapons,” or are they protected under the Second Amendment?

Forecasting what a court will do based on oral arguments is risky business. This correspondent observed that the Justices were a bit tougher on the attorney representing the state than on those representing Donnell and Marquis. This may be because the State arguments were significantly weaker.

Justice Wolohojian, appointed by Governor Healy, gave a good account of herself with well-thought-out questions.

Expect to see more discussion of the Supreme Court’s ban on “means-ends” arguments regarding the Second Amendment. The justices repeatedly mentioned that the Second Amendment is a fundamental constitutionally protected right. The entire question of reciprocity appears to be a “means-ends” argument.

A decision will unlikely be published on this case until long after the November presidential election.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.