An ambitious lawsuit to restore the people's right to bear arms in Massachusetts—now heading to the United States Supreme Court!

This lawsuit is unlike most others seeking to restore the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Eight law-abiding Massachusetts citizens brought constitutional challenges to numerous state laws and regulations, including:

1. regulations issued by executive branch entities that restrict or forbid people from exercising their constitutional rights;
2. laws banning law-abiding, licensed citizens from carrying firearms in numerous public places;
3. laws banning citizens from acquiring, possessing, or carrying a variety of commonly used arms and self-defense items;
4. the ban of suppressors, which are important hearing and firearm-safety devices;
5. hefty fees to exercise constitutional rights on some people while exempting other privileged people;
6. requirements to register and serialize firearms;
7. bans of many common, modern firearms;
8. court orders confiscating firearms and licenses from people who have not been charged with or convicted of any crime.

The Massachusetts courts dismissed nearly all of our claims without deciding whether the challenged laws are constitutional. The Appeals Court ruled that we could not seek review before enforcement because we had not provided detailed future plans or explained why we wished to exercise the rights these laws restrict.

We are now preparing a petition for writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to review that ruling. Some of us already have experience doing so in a prior civil rights case.

The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions each year and can hear only a small percentage. We have carefully studied the Court’s rules, standards, and best practices so that we can give this case its strongest possible presentation. We believe our petition strongly presents two central reasons for Supreme Court review:

The issue is broadly important. Citizens should be able to ask whether a law is constitutional before they must choose between surrendering a right and risking arrest, prosecution, confiscation, or loss of a license.

The ruling conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized pre-enforcement challenges to laws that burden constitutional rights. Yet the Appeals Court invented unusual additional requirements and prevented nearly all our claims from being heard.

Massachusetts woman Jaime Caetano was prosecuted for possessing a stun gun she had used to defend herself from a violent former partner. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Massachusetts ruling against her. Our case asks whether citizens must become new Caetanos—arrested and prosecuted under potentially unconstitutional laws—before courts will decide whether those laws are valid.

We ultimately seek rulings declaring the challenged laws unconstitutional and unenforceable, not only as applied to us, but for the benefit of other citizens subject to the same laws.

Preparing a Supreme Court petition requires compliance with detailed rules, dozens of hours of legal research and writing, and the specialized formatting, printing, binding, and filing of forty copies. Donations help cover those court costs and the financial losses we incur by taking many hours away from our paying occupations. Even so, the cost remains only a small fraction of what this litigation would cost if handled by attorneys.

Please donate and share this campaign. Your support helps give these important constitutional questions their best opportunity to be heard.