Legal/Law/Criminal Justice and Reform

Massachusetts Fails To Get Suit Tossed Over Delayed Gun Permits

Martha's_Vineyard cottages | Circa June 2008 | Michele Schaffer

Attorneys for the state of Massachusetts failed to force a lawsuit to be thrown out that accused the state of delaying the processing of carry permits for out of state residents.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) sued Massachusetts in August 2025 over delays in processing carry permits for out-of-state applicants alongside the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) and several non-residents who resided in the state for part of the year. In the ruling released Friday, Chief United States District Judge Denise Casper of the District of Massachusetts, an Obama appointee, allowed the litigation to proceed.

“Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that their LTC applications are effectively denied during such periods,” Casper wrote, noting that the state’s non-resident permits were only good for a duration of one year and that the lack of a grace period meant that non-residents could face criminal charges for carrying a firearm they owned.

“Massachusetts begrudgingly makes carry permits available for out-of-state residents but makes the process of acquiring and renewing them on an annual basis unconstitutionally burdensome,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Delays of multiple months for both new applications and renewals – which are required every year – are commonplace, and without any grace period for those folks with pending renewals, our members who are subjected to these delays have their rights extinguished for extended periods of time year after year.”

Russell Lawson, Jr., Brian Burns and Christopher Penta were seeking to either obtain or renew their non-resident permits, primarily living in New York, Florida and New Hampshire, respectively, while also owning property in Massachusetts where they stayed for part of the year, according to the initial complaint.

SAF previously sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over its handling of concealed carry permits in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, that struck down “may issue” concealed carry permit regimes. However, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas warned that even “shall issue” jurisdictions (which California became after the decision) could face legal action over extensive delays or excessive fees.

“[B]ecause any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry,” Thomas said in a footnote of the opinion.