Some New Hampshire residents have found themselves in hot water with the State of Massachusetts regarding gun carry laws.
New Hampshire Public Radio (NHPR) reported in an October 11 article about two cases where N.H. residents were charged for possessing a firearm without a permit. Both cases made their way to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Mass. SJC) as a lower court argued it was in the defendants’ purview according to the Second Amendment; however, the State of Mass. is arguing for their right to implement laws, according to NHPR.
The difference between N.H. and Mass. is quite stark. N.H. is a permitless carry state, allowing any adult age 18 and older that has a valid hand weapon/pistol permit to open carry or carry concealed. Gun laws in Mass. are quite strict for both residents and non-residents, requiring both groups to obtain licenses to carry and take a gun safety course. That is the heart of the issue: The difference in state laws and who is subject to them.
N.H. Attorney General John Formella commented, according to NHPR, that N.H. residents should not have to “lay down their right to armed self-defense.” That statement by Formella is just blatantly disingenuous and foolish on many levels. People pretend that N.H. residents are losing a right by having to fill out some paperwork and take a one-day gun safety course.
If it is truly that important to you to carry a firearm on your person, just go through the steps for the permit. If you cannot be bothered to do any of that then suffer the consequences of your poor choices. This is advice the conservative gun owners would give to anyone else whether they wanted to hear it or not, so it only seems fitting.
Now, there is a problem for pro-gun freedom supporters: There needs to be a carve-out, an exception to the law. They are just wimps getting in their feelings because they do not like the rules. Mind you, these rules do not outright prohibit gun possession, they just slightly inconvenience the person who owns the gun. This is more of a “slippery slope” than pro-gun advocates realize.
If pro-gun advocates are not careful they could very well screw this up for conservatives overall. This challenge to Mass. law is really a challenge to the sovereignty of the state government.
This challenge to “state’s rights” is not something conservative policy advocates would usually be making, considering their positions on issues such as abortion. The argument they are making is both dangerous and mental, at best, for their position on “state’s rights” as well.
Arguing in Mass. SJC that non-state residents do not have the obligation to follow state laws is insane. If someone had come to N.H. and did this, people would think they are nuts. If this were to be successful in court though, the precedent it sets would be amazing; it would mean that states, when push comes to shove, do not have true sovereignty from other states. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
Timothy Fitzpatrick can be contacted at
tfitzpatrick@kscequinox.com
