Initially, upon the passage of Ch. 135, GOAL received so many calls and inquiries from national groups looking to get a piece of the law to challenge. GOAL’s intentions were to act as a sort of “air traffic controller” to try and help keep groups from launching competing or conflicting lawsuits in order to more efficiently allocate our side’s finite resources. With members chomping at the bit for lawsuits, it was imperative for us to manage funds properly.

Here is the current list of lawsuits GOAL is currently involved in, as well as a brief description and their current status: www.GOAL.org/legal

• Hanlon v. Campbell; GOAL is working with the National Rifle Association to challenge the new “assault style firearms” restrictions in Ch. 135. Attorneys Jay Porter and Jason Guida have filed suit in the Eastern Division of the Massachusetts Federal District Court.

• Baas-Thomas v. City of Boston; GOAL is partnering with Comm2A, Attorney Jason Guida, and his client: Max Baas-Thomas. His LTC was significantly delayed and upon seeking judicial review, the judge in the case determined that since the 40-day approval timeline has no enforcement mechanism, it is therefore unenforceable and means nothing. They are now appealing the decision to the SJC. GOAL’s intentions were to file a similar case in Federal Court but have put that pleading on pause until this appeal is decided.

• Commonwealth v. Culotta; following a traffic stop, Kyle Culotta was charged with possessing a firearm without a license as well as a number of other large capacity/assault style firearms charges. GOAL funded and hired Attorney Dan Hagan as counsel for this case and since he has taken over, he has filed for an emergency bail hearing with the SJC and has gotten the large capacity and ASF charges dismissed.

 

• Escher v. Noble; GOAL is joined by Comm2A, the NRA, Gun Owners’ of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition in a Massachusetts District Federal Court challenge to the Commonwealth’s restrictions that deny adults between 18-20 the ability to get a License to Carry.

• Commonwealth v. Marquis and Commonwealth v. Donnell; Critical cases on license availability and suitability. The Donnell and Marquis opinions were both released on the same day and referenced each other – which was interesting as they were opposite rulings with similar fact patterns due to one being charged before Ch. 135 and one being charged after Ch. 135 – with Marquis being the latter case. Attorneys on the case have filed for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court and GOAL has written an Amicus Curiae Brief in support of the writ.

• Westbrook v. Pratt; This is a case that has been run, top to bottom, by Attorney William Smith. Mr. Westbrook was denied his LTC due to “suitability,” a nebulous, subjective standard that allows local police chiefs to have almost full discretion regarding who is allowed to get their licenses due to what they deem to be an “articulable reason.” The SJC now has the case as the district court has decided that “suitability” was unconstitutional but the Superior Court overturned that decision. You can read Attorney Smith’s most recent update about this case on his blog.

• Lawson v. Campbell; a challenge to the Commonwealth’s non-resident licensing scheme filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court. GOAL is working with the Second Amendment Foundation on this case and Jason Guida is local counsel.

• Doran v. Pacunas; This is a suitability case in the state courts led by Attorney Dan Hagan. Many of these cases are won on the district level and are overturned at higher levels. It is vital that we attack the entire premise of the “suitability” regime, especially post Bruen.  

 

• Granata v. Campbell; This case against the handgun testing and roster is being led by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). It has been tied up in federal court since June 2021.

• Theodore v. Campbell; This was GOAL’s first attack on Chapter 135. It dealt with training requirements in federal court. GOAL spent tens of thousands of dollars to prepare and file this case. Once it was filed, the legislature amended the law postponing the training requirements.

 

• No Case Name Yet; GOAL spent considerable resources to prepare a case against the new long gun testing and roster, and as soon as we were ready to file the case in federal court, the Commonwealth announced it would not be enforcing that part of the statute. This made the case moot, however, the state has still not changed the law.  

• No Case Name Yet; GOAL has prepared a federal challenge to the licensing delays, but we are waiting for the outcome of Bass to launch.