Analysis: Impact of Bruen on Massachusetts Firearms Licensing

The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen^[1] struck down New York's "proper cause" requirement for concealed carry permits and established a new framework for evaluating firearms regulations. This analysis examines the practical impact on Massachusetts licensing and the legislature's response.

Massachusetts Before Bruen

Massachusetts already operated under a "shall-issue" framework following the 2014 reforms. However, licensing authorities retained significant discretion through the "suitability" determination, which allowed them to deny or restrict licenses based on factors beyond the statutory disqualifiers.

Legislative Response: Chapter 135

The Massachusetts legislature passed Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024^[2] in part as a response to the Bruen decision. Rather than weakening the licensing framework, the legislature preserved and refined the suitability standard, added new prohibited areas for carrying, and expanded the categories of restricted firearms. Chapter 135 effectively embedded many of the state's discretionary licensing practices into the statutory framework, potentially making them more defensible under Bruen's historical tradition test.

Post-Bruen Changes in Practice

Following Bruen, several Massachusetts licensing authorities have reduced the frequency with which they impose restrictions on LTCs. While the suitability standard has not been formally struck down, many departments have become more cautious about exercising broad discretion in light of the constitutional framework articulated by the Supreme Court. The new Firearm Licensing Review Board under Section 130B^[3] provides an additional administrative review mechanism for denied applicants.

Ongoing Litigation

Several cases are pending in Massachusetts state and federal courts challenging various aspects of the firearms regulatory framework under the Bruen standard:

• Capen v. Campbell, 134 F.4th 660 (1st Cir. 2025): First Circuit affirmed denial of preliminary injunction against the assault weapons ban in April 2025. The case has returned to the district court for full adjudication on the merits, with discovery and briefing underway. No petition for certiorari has been filed.
• Granata v. Campbell: Challenges the constitutionality of the EOPSS Approved Firearms Roster.
• Hanlon v. Campbell (D. Mass., filed August 22, 2025): NRA-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the assault-style firearms ban under the Second Amendment and raising a Fifth Amendment vagueness challenge. Massachusetts has asserted sovereign immunity.
• Escher v. Noble (D. Mass., filed February 2025): Coalition lawsuit by SAF, NRA, GOAL, Commonwealth Second Amendment, FPC, and GOA challenging the 18-to-20-year-old handgun and semiautomatic ban under Chapter 135.
• Donnell/Marquis (Non-Resident Licensing): RESOLVED. The SJC ruled March 11, 2025, holding that the pre-Bruen "may issue" non-resident licensing scheme was unconstitutional as applied (Donnell), but that the post-Chapter 135 "shall issue" framework is constitutional (Marquis, SJC-13562). SCOTUS declined certiorari January 2026 (Docket No. 25-5280). The non-resident licensing framework is now settled law.

Practical Advice for Applicants

• Apply for an unrestricted LTC and document any denial or restriction
• If restricted, consider appealing through the district court review process under Section 131(f) or petitioning the new Licensing Review Board
• Keep records of all communications with the licensing authority
• Consult with a firearms attorney if your application is denied or unreasonably restricted