I used to think constitutional rights were federal guarantees. Universal protections that traveled with you across America.
I was wrong.
The Massachusetts gun law dispute isn’t about preventing a constitutional crisis. **We’re already living in one.** Constitutional rights have quietly transformed into state privileges, regulated by geography rather than guaranteed by the Constitution.
The proof is simple. Cross a state line with a firearm and you can become a felon instantly.
Not because you violated federal law. Because you entered a state that decided your constitutional rights don’t apply there.
The Absurd Reality
New Hampshire residents can become criminals by backing out of their driveway in the wrong direction. Shopping at Pheasant Lane Mall becomes a felony if you park on the Massachusetts side.
Massachusetts demands out-of-state visitors undergo a permit process that can take up to 170 days. For a constitutional right.
Imagine if Massachusetts required a 170-day permit for out-of-state visitors to speak freely. Or practice their religion. Or avoid unreasonable searches.
The outcry would be immediate and universal.
But somehow we’ve accepted that the Second Amendment operates differently. That constitutional rights can have residency requirements.
The Precedent Problem
Twenty-five states are challenging Massachusetts because they recognize what I see. **This isn’t really about guns.**
This is about whether states can impose different standards for constitutional rights based on where you live.
If Massachusetts wins, every constitutional protection becomes negotiable at state borders. Free speech zones. Religious practice permits. Due process variations.
The Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than supreme law.
Constitutional Checkpoints
I keep thinking about those New Hampshire residents backing out of their driveways. One direction keeps you legal. The other makes you a felon.
That’s not constitutional law. That’s arbitrary power.
State borders have become constitutional checkpoints where your rights get stamped, approved, or denied based on local politics rather than federal guarantees.
We already live in a country where constitutional rights stop at state lines. The Massachusetts case will simply decide whether we’re honest about it.
The Supreme Court faces a choice. Restore constitutional uniformity or formalize the balkanization of American rights.
I know which direction I’m hoping they choose.
