Key Takeaways
- A federal judge allowed a lawsuit about Massachusetts’ nonresident license to carry to proceed due to significant renewal delays.
- Plaintiffs argue their rights were violated because renewal took months past the 40-day deadline without a grace period.
- The court dismissed a facial challenge but allowed an as-applied challenge to move forward, citing the unconstitutionality of the delays.
- The Equal Protection claim survives, highlighting the unfair treatment of nonresidents based on their geographical location.
- The case, Lawson v. Campbell, emphasizes the complexities of carrying permits and the issue of bureaucratic delays affecting Second Amendment rights.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
BOSTON, MA — A federal judge has refused to throw out a lawsuit over how Massachusetts processes its nonresident license to carry, ruling that renewal delays running months past the state’s own 40-day deadline, with no grace period, plausibly deprived three out-of-state gun owners of their right to carry. Chief U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper’s Aug. 28 memorandum and order in Lawson v. Campbell is a split. Two claims go forward. Two are dismissed.
The plaintiffs are Russell Lawson Jr. of Queens, New York, Brian Burns of Miromar Lakes, Florida, and Christopher Penta of Hampstead, New Hampshire, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Gun Owners Action League. They sued Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and other state officials in August 2025. SAF announced the ruling Aug. 31 and called it a “pivotal procedural win.”
The system, as the court laid it out from the complaint and accepted as true at this stage: a resident’s license lasts six years and has a grace period if it lapses during renewal. A nonresident’s license lasts one year, has no grace period, costs $100 per application, requires annual fingerprinting, and new applicants must appear in person at the Firearms Records Bureau in Chelsea. By statute, the state must approve or deny within 40 days. The state’s own website says up to 90.
The plaintiffs say it took far longer. Lawson applied in January 2025 and got the earliest interview available, June 9. He missed it for work, rescheduled, and the next slot was Oct. 20. The FRB then asked about an out-of-state criminal charge he had not disclosed, and both sides told the court he was licensed March 3, 2026. Burns says one on-time renewal did not arrive until almost six months after his old license expired. Penta says one came almost two months late. The state’s own filing, citing the complaint, put the figures at 95 and 287 days of processing and 131 and 101 days to get an interview.
Massachusetts argued nobody was denied, so nobody was hurt, and since all three now hold licenses there was nothing left to decide. Judge Casper rejected both. Citing Bruen, she wrote that lengthy wait times can themselves be constitutional injuries, and a nonresident who cannot legally carry during a lapse has effectively been denied for that period. Because the license must be renewed every year, the same delays are likely to recur, so the case is not moot, meaning not over.
The plaintiffs brought two Second Amendment claims. The facial challenge, which argues the law is unconstitutional in every application, was dismissed: some applicants would face only a brief delay, and a brief delay is not constitutional harm. The as-applied challenge, which argues the law was unconstitutional in the way it actually worked on these three men, survives. The court called it “a close question.” The delays at minimum more than doubled the 40-day statutory period, and combined with no grace period, plausibly deprived the plaintiffs of their right to public carry. That overcame the presumption of constitutionality Bruen gives shall-issue licensing. The state then had to point to a historical tradition supporting the delays. It offered history for in-person interviews and none for the delays.
The Equal Protection claim, which argues the delays penalize the right to travel by treating people differently based on where they live, also survives. Judge Casper wrote the plaintiffs face a real dilemma: enter Massachusetts with a firearm during a lapse and risk arrest, or give up their Second Amendment rights at the state line. That triggers strict scrutiny, meaning the state must prove a compelling interest and a law narrowly tailored to it, and the state never argued how the scheme is narrowly tailored. The Privileges and Immunities claim was dismissed; the court found no decision holding that public carry is among the rights fundamental to the nation functioning as one.
“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.
For readers outside Massachusetts, this matters because a permit is only as good as the states that honor it. Some states sign formal agreements; others recognize out-of-state permits on their own. My reciprocity maps show which is which. Where a state honors nothing, its nonresident license is the only legal path, and the speed of that process is the whole fight.
More from USA Carry:
Nothing is decided on the merits. The plaintiffs still have to prove the delays happened as alleged and were long enough to be unconstitutional as applied to them. But the argument that this case should never be heard is finished. Part of a carry mindset is knowing you are legal every day you carry, and a nonresident who renews on time should not need a federal lawsuit to get that.
I will continue tracking Lawson v. Campbell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
