No, not the "Devil's Snare" that went into effect two weeks ago, though the NRA has already filed suit in an attempt to halt the new training and licensing edicts from being enforced, and my guess is that the Second Amendment Foundation will also be challenging other aspects of Chapter 35 in the weeks to come. 

This particular case involves an older Massachusetts gun law; one that prevents non-residents from carrying for self-defense. State statute allows a  non-resident to apply for a “temporary license to carry firearms”, but only “for purposes of firearms competition." Attorneys for the state of Massachusetts contend that the competition language only applies to non-resident aliens, but non-residents who want to carry must still apply to the state police for a temporary license before they can lawfully bear arms. As the Second Amendment groups argue, a draconian provision like that is nowhere to be found in the national tradition of keeping and bearing arms. 

Historically, non-residents—including travelers—were never subject to greater restrictions than residents. Many jurisdictions subjected nonresidents to the same standards as residents. But whenever laws differentiated between residents and non-residents, it was to provide non-residents with greater carry protections.

For their first example the attorneys cite a 1686 law from New Jersey that prohibited “privately” carrying various weapons, but exempted "“all strangers, travelling upon their lawful occasions thro’ this Province, behaving themselves peaceably.”

After the founding of America, beginning in the 1810s and continuing through the end of the nineteenth century, many jurisdictions regulated carry but specifically exempted travelers. In the 1810s, both Kentucky and Indiana prohibited the concealed carry of certain weapons—including pistols, dirks, and sword canes—but both states provided exemptions for travelers. 1813 Ky. Acts 100 (no concealed carry of certain weapons “unless when travelling on a journey”); 5 1820 Ind. Acts 39 (no concealed carry of certain weapons, “[p]rovided however, that this, act shall not be so construed as to affect travellers”). 

The following decade, Tennessee banned all carry, “either public or private,” of a “dirk, sword cane, French knife, Spanish stiletto, belt or pocket pistols.” 1821 Tenn. Pub. Acts 15. But the law specified “[t]hat nothing herein contained shall affect . . . any person that may be on a journey to any place out of his county or state.”

Most states, of course, didn't have any outright restrictions on the right to carry; either for travelers or homebodies. And states like Kentucky and Indiana prohibited concealed carry only, while allowing for open carry. Our cultural norms may have changed since then to the point that concealed carry is now the norm and open carry the exception, but the right to bear arms in self-defense has remained unchanged through the centuries. 

In Massachusetts, however, you must have a License to Carry in order to bear arms openly or concealed, and as we've previously discussed, obtaining an LTC isn't an option for non-residents. This is a problem for tens of thousands of lawful gun owners living near the border in neighboring states like Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. Massachusetts may be where they do most of their shopping, recreating, and work, but there's no real way for them to lawfully exercise their Second Amendment rights once they cross the state line. 

Dean Donnell is one of those gun owners, and his case is the reason why NRA and SAF have teamed up for this amicus brief. Earlier this year a Massachusetts judge dismissed charges that were filed against New Hampshire resident when he was found with a firearm in Massachusetts. 

“An individual only loses a constitutional right if he commits an offense or is or has been engaged in certain behavior that is covered by 18 USC section 922,” Judge Coffey wrote on August 3rd in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dean F. Donnell. “He doesn’t lose that right simply by traveling into an adjoining state whose statute mandates that residents of that state obtain a license prior to exercising their constitutional right. To hold otherwise would inexplicably treat Second Amendment rights differently than other individually held rights. Therefore, the Court finds that GL. 269, sec. (10a) is unconstitutional as applied to this particularly situated defendant and allows the motion to dismiss on that ground.”

Prosecutors have appealed Coffey's decision, which gives Second Amendment advocate an opportunity to buttress the judge's argument in favor of Donnell. 

Between this case and what's going on with Higbie v. James in New York, there's a lot of progress being made on the right to carry beyond the state where you live. We also have CRPA v. LASD, which among other things challenges California's own prohibition on non-resident carry by not recognizing any out-of-state permits and not allowing non-residents to apply for a permit from the state. The NRA and SAF make a strong argument that if anything, the historical tradition of gun ownership in this country provides more protection for non-residents... which, given the draconian nature of Massachusetts gun laws, would honestly be a pretty low bar to clear.