Anti-2A State Faces Its Biggest Legal Threat Yet

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has launched what could be one of the most significant court battles yet against Massachusetts’ restrictive gun laws. According to an August 13, 2025 press release, SAF – joined by the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) and three individual plaintiffs – has filed a lawsuit challenging the Commonwealth’s process for non-residents to obtain a License to Carry (LTC). SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the state’s system creates “an unconstitutional barrier” to self-defense rights, targeting non-residents with costs, delays, and annual renewal requirements far harsher than those faced by residents.

Why Non-Residents Are Singled Out

Under current Massachusetts law, residents receive an LTC valid for six years. Non-residents, however, must renew every single year, often starting the renewal process mere months after first obtaining their permit. As SAF’s press release points out, these renewals are subject to the same delays as initial applications, with no grace period for expired permits that are still being processed. In other words, a non-resident can be left unlicensed – and therefore at legal risk – solely because of bureaucratic backlog.

Jared Yanis Calls It “Tyranny Through Inaction”

In a detailed breakdown on his Guns & Gadgets channel, host Jared Yanis didn’t mince words. He described the Massachusetts system as “deliberate suppression of constitutional rights,” warning that any hostile state bureaucracy could copy this playbook: simply delay renewals, require in-person appointments, and let the clock disarm people. Yanis stressed that this case is not just about Massachusetts – its outcome could shape carry rights for non-residents nationwide.

Six-Month Waits, One Office in the State

Both SAF and Yanis highlighted the state’s rigid and outdated process. Non-resident applicants must appear in person at the Firearms Records Bureau in Chelsea – the only location in the entire state handling these permits. Miss an appointment, and you’re sent to the back of the line, sometimes waiting another six months or more. SAF says this process routinely blows past the state’s own 40-day processing requirement, leaving applicants stranded without legal carry rights for months at a time.

The Plaintiffs Putting Their Names on the Line

The lawsuit, Lawson v. Campbell, includes three non-resident plaintiffs facing real-world consequences under Massachusetts’ system. SAF’s press release details their situations:

• Russell Lawson Jr., a New York resident who owns 19 acres in Massachusetts, was given a six-month wait for his first appointment. When work forced him to reschedule, his new date was pushed back to 10 months after his application – leaving him unable to carry even on his own property.
• Brian Burns, a Florida resident and former Massachusetts resident, sent his renewal application in with time to spare. Ten months later, he still had no license and no ability to carry in the state.
• Christopher Penta, from New Hampshire, was left unlicensed for five weeks between his LTC’s expiration and renewal, despite repeated calls and emails to the state.

Equal Protection and Constitutional Claims

The legal argument is built on multiple constitutional pillars. SAF and its co-plaintiffs claim violations of the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. As Jared Yanis summarized, “Massachusetts treats residents and non-residents completely differently” – a disparity the lawsuit argues has no historical precedent under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.

The Stakes for Every Gun Owner Who Travels

While this lawsuit originates in Massachusetts, SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb emphasized the broader principle: “You cannot force someone to give up their Second Amendment because they cross a state line.” This isn’t just about Bay State politics – it’s about whether Americans retain their right to carry when traveling for work, vacation, or even passing through. If Massachusetts can get away with these delays and annual renewals, there’s little to stop other anti-gun states from following suit.

Bureaucracy as a Weapon

What stands out here isn’t just the law itself, but the way administrative slowdowns are used to achieve what lawmakers can’t openly legislate. By dragging out appointments and processing times, the state can effectively suspend someone’s carry rights without ever having to pass a formal ban. It’s an indirect form of disarmament – and one that’s harder to challenge without cases like this.

Delays Have Real-World Risks

Both SAF’s filing and Yanis’ reporting make clear that these aren’t abstract harms. If a non-resident’s license expires while waiting for renewal, they’re legally barred from carrying in Massachusetts – even if they’ve held a valid LTC for decades. Worse, if caught carrying while expired, they can be prosecuted as a felon. The risk isn’t theoretical; it’s a daily reality for lawful gun owners whose paperwork has been stalled.

A Minimal Ask With Maximum Potential

Interestingly, SAF isn’t asking the court to abolish the licensing scheme altogether – at least not in this suit. Instead, they’re seeking compliance with existing state law: process applications in the mandated 40 days, allow non-residents to apply and renew remotely, and stop criminalizing people because of state delays. As Yanis put it, “They’re asking for the minimum here,” which could make this an easier win and still set a powerful precedent.

A Blueprint for Future Fights

If successful, this case could punch a significant hole in what Yanis calls the “may-issue-by-delay” model. That could ripple far beyond Massachusetts, forcing other states to either streamline their non-resident processes or face similar litigation. It could also strengthen legal arguments against other bureaucratic barriers to exercising Second Amendment rights.

Looking Ahead

The lawsuit’s outcome will depend heavily on how the court applies the Bruen framework to non-resident permits. But whatever happens, SAF and GOAL’s challenge has already spotlighted how administrative processes can be weaponized against lawful gun owners. As Gottlieb put it, “The Second Amendment applies to all Americans in all states, period.” If the plaintiffs win, Massachusetts could be forced to choose between modernizing its system or dismantling it entirely – a choice that could reshape carry rights well beyond its borders.