Independent New Hampshire Journalism · Northfield, NHUpdate and correction, Sept. 19, 2026, 2:38 p.m. EDT: On January 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Marquis v. Massachusetts, the case this column discussed, according to the Court's docket. An earlier version of this column also said Massachusetts' permit process for visitors can take up to 170 days and that 25 states were challenging Massachusetts. In fact, New Hampshire's brief put the delays at 40 to 170 days, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader, and Massachusetts officials say the process may take up to 90 days, according to The Boston Globe; the 25 states filed a brief supporting the petition rather than bringing their own challenge, according to the Globe. Those two passages have been corrected.
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 New Hampshire's brief says can take 40 to 170 days; Massachusetts officials say it may take up to 90 days. Either way, 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 signed a brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case 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. Related: Kelly Ayotte's War on Massachusetts: When "Live Free or Die" Becomes "Do as I Say"Corrections: Granite State Report corrects verified errors promptly and appends a dated note identifying what changed and when. The corrections policy and the corrections register are public, and correction notes are never removed.
1 Comment