Jared sometimes gets over-enthusiastic but this appears to be 100% solid. Case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts v Dean F. Donnell, opinion is dated 8/3/23 by judge John F Coffey, listed in the last page as Associate Justice. Appears to come out of Middlesex MA. If anybody can find me a PDF of the final order and if possible, motions by the defense that led to this (or at least the defense attorney’s name) I’d be much obliged.

The winning argument appears to be based on Bruen. Reconstructing it as best I can from the judges order, defense argued that there is no text history or tradition of barring people from defensive arms in one state merely because they come from another state. I don’t see any evidence that my three other favorite arguments were used:

• Making somebody get somewhere around 18 permits total to get national carry rights violates the bans on excessive fees and excessive delays in the access to carry rights found at Bruen footnote 9. It absolutely detonates those bans.

• Saenz v Roe 1999 (US Supreme Court) bans states from discriminating against visiting residents of other states. (This would not be an issue in Massachusetts regardless because it is possible for somebody from New Hampshire or another state like mine in Alabama to obtain a Massachusetts carry permit.)

• The MA permit processes still contain subjective elements such as letters of reference banned in Bruen footnote 9 via the citation to Shuttlesworth v Birmingham 1969. In other words, if this guy would have been forced to jump through banned subjective hoops to carry in MA, he was under no obligation to do that. The proof is in the Shuttlesworth case itself; the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth was legally required to get a permit for a demonstration (a constitutional right) involving subjective standards; he didn’t get the permit, ran the protest anyway, was criminally charged and convicted in State Court and then the US Supreme Court cleared him of all charges because everything that happened to him was unconstitutional: subjective standards when accessing to a basic civil right are absolutely forbidden in that 1969 case.