Journalist Cam Edwards opens his Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co episode with a blunt theme: Massachusetts is treating non-residents like criminals for exercising rights they lawfully hold at home.
His guest, Massachusetts attorney Daniel Hagan, lives this fight in courtrooms across the Commonwealth.
Together, they walk through cases that show how easily a road trip, a wrong turn, or an emergency can become a felony.
The pattern, they say, is getting worse – especially for people who don’t have the state’s “permission slip.”
I agree with the framing here. In a small New England state with borders only minutes away, a permission-based system feels designed to snare travelers, not violent actors.
It’s policy by tripwire.
The Kyle Culotta Shock: 120 Days in Jail for Possession
Cam Edwards recaps the case of Kyle Culotta – an Air Force veteran traveling from Arizona with his girlfriend, living out of their car and DoorDashing along the way.
A traffic stop in Massachusetts spiraled fast. The officer said the car would be towed. Culotta disclosed firearms and ammunition.
He was arrested on “mere possessory offenses.”
According to Edwards, a judge labeled Culotta “dangerous” – even though he had no criminal record – and Massachusetts law allowed the state to hold him without bond for up to 120 days.
That’s exactly what happened.
Hagan says he managed to get serious charges dropped along the way, yet Culotta remained stuck under that “dangerousness” tag until late October.
What rankles both men is the contrast. As Edwards notes, a Boston defendant accused of shooting at a vehicle with a pregnant woman inside was not deemed dangerous. A governor’s aide arrested on cocaine trafficking and illegal gun possession was initially deemed dangerous, then released after a higher-court review.
Culotta? Four months behind bars for possession – items legal in his home state.
From a due-process standpoint, that’s a gut punch. The “dangerousness” statute might be lawful on paper, but the way it’s used here feels unmoored from actual risk.
“Dangerousness” by Discretion, Not by Facts
Hagan says the dangerousness law requires clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is a risk and that no conditions of release can protect the community.
He can’t fathom how anyone met that standard for Culotta.
Prosecutors choose when to ask for a dangerousness hearing. Judges choose when to grant it. In practice, Hagan says, it’s “judge by judge, case by case.”
And with non-residents, prosecutors are pressing the button.
Edwards highlights what that means in real life: the state can hold someone for months before trial for nonviolent possession, while other defendants with violent allegations walk.
That’s not just tough on gun owners; it’s corrosive to trust in equal justice.
My view: when pretrial detention becomes a policy tool instead of a targeted safeguard, it’s a red flag. Especially when the “danger” is a right recognized everywhere else in America – until you cross this border.
One-Size-Fits-All Charging: Felonies, Minimums, No Slack
Hagan says prosecutors are running a one-size-fits-all playbook:
- Charge non-residents with felonies for unlicensed possession, often with mandatory minimum jail time – 18 months, he notes, on a basic possession count.
- Layer on enhancements like “loaded firearm” that stack exposure.
- Move for dangerousness without distinguishing travelers from true criminals.
- Treat magazines as standalone felonies. He cites a 65-year-old Vermonter indicted for “large-capacity” mags found on I-91 – no gun involved – whom the state wanted to jail.
Hagan beat the jail term in that case, but it took “several lawyers and a few years.”
The message to travelers is unmistakable. Your record doesn’t matter. Your intent doesn’t matter. Your home-state legality doesn’t matter. If you didn’t pre-obtain Massachusetts’ paper, everything else is negotiable – and the negotiation can cost your freedom.
I’d add: mandatory minimums convert discretion into leverage. The longer the minimum, the heavier the thumb on the plea scale.
Licensing by Permission Slip: “Shall Issue” in Name Only
Hagan also handles licensing fights. He says the state is not truly “shall-issue,” despite what Massachusetts courts claim.
Why? Because police wield broad “suitability” discretion to deny permits – even when the applicant isn’t federally prohibited.
And here’s the kicker: when you appeal a denial, you carry the burden to prove the police acted unreasonably.
The government doesn’t have to show you’re a danger. You must prove they’re wrong.
Hagan has pending challenges to that burden-flip. He argues no other constitutional right is treated this way – and he’s right to ask: what other right requires you to prove your innocence to gain permission to exercise it?
For non-residents, the gauntlet is worse.
Hagan says getting a non-resident license can take months, up to a year, and requires an in-person visit. For travelers who merely want to visit family in Andover or grab lunch in Springfield, that’s effectively a ban.
Edwards calls it what it is: unreasonable.
The practical effect is that reciprocity dies at the border. And if you cross unknowingly, the felony waits.
The Hospital Arrest and the “Victim Turned Perpetrator”
Hagan details a new case: an 18-year nurse, law-abiding, carrying for self-defense, likely within the state’s vehicle-carry exception as a non-resident passing through.
She’s hit in a hit-and-run. At the hospital in a neck brace, police inventory search her car, find the firearm, and charge her with unlicensed possession and loaded-gun enhancement.
He says this is routine: the victim becomes the perpetrator.
Prosecutors could decline the case. Police could exercise discretion. So far, they haven’t.
Hagan is trying to head off a dangerousness motion. Time has elapsed, and he’s urging common sense. But as he notes, the statute allows the state to try.
This is the chilling effect in plain sight. An otherwise model citizen, physically harmed in a crash, faces felony charges because she crossed a line on the map.
Courts, Congress, and a Backdoor to Reciprocity
Edwards asks whether courts might fix this. Hagan sees two paths.
First, legislation like H.R. 38 (national reciprocity). With a Senate filibuster, he’s skeptical, though he notes that could change.
Second, litigation. He points to a petition styled Commonwealth v. Marquee (as referenced in the conversation), where the Massachusetts high court upheld applying these laws to out-of-staters who simply crossed the border.
If the U.S. Supreme Court takes a clean case, Hagan believes the justices could say what seems intuitive: constitutional rights don’t stop at state lines.
Your First Amendment doesn’t vanish in Boston. Your Fourth doesn’t flicker out in Springfield. Why should your Second?
That would create a kind of judicial reciprocity, even if Congress stalls.
I think that’s the most realistic near-term route. Post-Bruen, the Court has drawn a bright line around history and text. A border-based veto on arms carrying looks hard to square with that framework – especially when the state offers no realistic path for travelers to comply.
What Non-Residents Can Do Right Now
Edwards asks the practical question: what should gun-owning travelers do?
Hagan gives conservative advice:
- Avoid bringing firearms into Massachusetts unless you’re clearly within an exception – and be prepared to prove it later.
- If you must carry, apply early for a non-resident license and plan for the in-person requirement and long delays.
- Understand that police and prosecutors may arrest first and force you to establish exceptions at trial.
No one likes that answer. But given the charging patterns, it’s the safest one for now.
And it underscores the larger point. When a right is gated by months-long bureaucracy and preclearance interviews, regular people will retreat – even if they’re in the right.
That’s a policy outcome, not a bug.
The Takeaway: Policy by Tripwire Isn’t Justice
Cam Edwards shines a spotlight on a state using detention and felony charges to police technical compliance by non-residents.
Daniel Hagan fills in the legal machinery: dangerousness hearings, mandatory minimums, suitability denials, and a licensing regime that flips the burden onto the citizen.
The result is predictable. Veterans, nurses, and retirees get hammered. Meanwhile, some defendants with violent allegations meet a softer touch.
That mismatch erodes faith in the system.
My view is simple. If Massachusetts wants to fight violent crime, aim at violent conduct. But this one-size-fits-all approach to non-resident possession – backed by long minimums and pretrial jailing – turns neighbors into targets and rights into paperwork.
Borders shouldn’t erase the Bill of Rights. And the courts may soon have to say so – clearly, and for good.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
The article Massachusetts Targets Non-Residents for Using Their 2A Rights first appeared on Survival World.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
