6 NH state reps file Supreme Court brief against Mass gun-law enforcement

Got this From Kang Lu, an NH liberty activist with ties to Mass:

"Dear Friends and 2A Supporters,

I’d like to give a warm thanks to the Six New Hampshire State Reps who filed an amicus brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Philip Marquis!

:star:THANK YOU​:star: to Representatives Jason Gerhard, Matthew Coulon, Tom Mannion, Nikki McCarter, Diane Kelley, and Leah Cushman!!! :star: :bear::+1:t5:

The amicus has been posted on the SJC’s website: https://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/docket/SJC-13562, and attached for your convenience.

Here’s a brief summary:

Mr. Marquis, who lives in Rochester, New Hampshire, crashed his car while going to work near Lowell Mass. He was incidentally found to have a handgun. Officers cleared the crash site, seized his arms, and gave him a civil motor vehicle citation and issued a summons for “carrying an unlicensed firearm,” which is a felony in Mass. He was not arrested at the scene.

The main arguments of the amicus brief are:
0) An as applied constitutional challenge may be successful when it can be shown that the challenged statute does not cover the defendant’s particular conduct.

  1. Statutory rules of construction must be applied before any constitutional analysis; and the statutes are clearly intended for “Crimes Against Public Peace” and to the “Administration of the Government” for the “Public Safety and Good Order,” neither of which are properly applied to the peaceful exercise of Second Amendment rights.

  2. By collecting about $10 million a year in fees, the government is materially incentivized to market and to impose its licensing scheme upon all persons for all purposes, even those to whom it does not apply, such as ordinary Americans not in the business of Public Safety and Security. This creates an unlawful conflict, as a reasonable person would question the state’s impartiality when it stands to profit by imposing the license through the threat of prosecution.

  3. This prosecution subverts the principal-agency relationship between the people and the agencies of government, which are established to serve them, in violation of Article V of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Which states all power resides originally in the people and government officers are accountable to them at all times.

  4. This prosecution violates Article VII of the Declaration of Rights, because it does not promote the common good, and is instead instigated by officers who have turned the state’s firearms regulations into a tool of exaction and control for their own profit or private interests, which they deploy under color of law, to chill the exercise of a fundamental right secured by the Constitution.

  5. The seizure of Marquis’s arms not only violates his substantive rights secured by the Second Amendment, which are “among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” (McDonald v. Chicago) but it also violates private property rights secured by the Fifth Amendment.

Well, there it is, Bearers! Until next time, Thank You, God Bless, and
Bear :bear: Arms "

1 Like

Here’s a copy of the brief

20240704, Amici Curiae for Marquis, FILED.pdf (1.3 MB)

Kang/Bear also posted about this sort of thing, in another part of shire forums. His post was hidden, but he asked me to copy and paste his post here:

May 28

Hi Guys,

Mr. Donnell is a young Granite Stater who crashed his car while traveling to or through Massachusetts from New Hampshire. Upon his arrest for drunk driving, the officer found and seized Mr. Donnell’s arms for personal use (a 9 mm pistol). He was charged, among other things, with “carrying a firearm without a license.” Judge Coffey of the District Court of Lowell DISMISSED his case, stating that the licensing law was unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Donnell.

The Commonwealth (State Prosecutors) made a direct appeal to the SJC (Supreme Judicial Court), and the case was subsequently accepted for judicial review. The Justices of the SJC have been soliciting amicus briefs in this matter. Pursuant to their invitation, Representative Jason Gerhard and I collaborated to provide our input, see brief at https://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/pdf/SJC-13561/SJC-13561_05_Amicus_Gerhard_Brief.pdf.

Summary of Amicus Brief:

The Mass. Licensing Laws are constitutional as written, but they only apply to gunsmiths, retailers, firearms safety instructors, security guards, and other professionals in their specified occupations.

The license to carry does NOT apply to the right of the people to bear arms for ourselves, and does NOT our right to bear arms, to interstate travel, or to equality under the laws.

By misapplying a professional license against the private individual right to bear arms for personal use, the government violated multiple laws, constitutional prohibitions, and due process guarantees, including: the administrative procedure act, the declaratory judgement act, separation of powers doctrine, major questions doctrine, defendant’s right to be informed, and the vague laws doctrine.

As a result of MULTIPLE violations of law, the courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce or punish the regulatory, victimless “crime” of having an unlicensed firearm. (So essentially, every such prosecution for the last 50+ years has been absolutely ILLEGAL!!!)

Even if the above were ignored, the courts have completely misconstrued statutory words, including “carry” and “firearms,” which are equivocation fallacies and homonyms. In short, the courts have been playing with words, and have used tactical ambiguity to deprive the Citizens of their rights secured by the Constitution.

All this is VERY VERY ILLEGAL and VERY BAD indeed! Great injustices have been perpetrated by these criminals under the color of law, and now they’re being exposed!!!

So to those of you who support the Second Amendment, please use this opportunity to share this with your social media, and help uncover the TRUTH that has been hidden to enslave you!

You can also petition the Mass. Supreme Court by way of writing an Amicus Curiae brief – other than paper and postage, it’s FREE, and if you have any questions, I can be reached at

Other discussion of this: