On October 24, 2025, the Commonwealth issued its initial response to the litigation. In answering each count in our filing, the State’s typical deflections and denials were as expected. The surprise came at the end under the header of “Affirmative Defenses”.

“First Affirmative Defense

The Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity bar Plaintiffs from seeking or obtaining relief against the Commonwealth and, in particular, bar a declaration or enforcement of state law against the defendant officials.”

Using the Eleventh Amendment defense is unfortunately a common defense used by states wanting to defy the Constitution. In this case the Commonwealth is grasping at straws as a 1908 U.S Supreme Court decision, Ex Parte Young, allows individuals to sue a state official in federal court to end a “continuing violation of federal law,” especially when the Constitution is in play.

Regardless of how common this defense is, this statement makes it clear that Attorney General Campbell is putting the Federal Courts on notice that they essentially have no jurisdiction over Massachusetts law and that the United States Constitution is no longer the law governing civil rights for Massachusetts citizens. This sheds light on why all three branches of Massachusetts government are vehemently strong arming the Second Amendment Community in defiance of NYSRPA v. Bruen.

“This one statement says everything we believed to be true since the drafting of Chapter 135 was initiated,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL. “Early in the process we said this effort amounted to nothing more than a tantrum response to the historic civil rights decision in Bruen. Just like years ago after Brown v. Board of Education, another historic civil rights decision where the affected states went rogue and claimed the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had no say in the matter. This single statement from the Attorney General emphasizes the arrogance of our state government.”

This may certainly catch the ire of SCOTUS much like the Caetano stun gun case in 2016 where the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court thumbed their collective noses at previous pro-2A Scotus decisions. 

Read full response from the Commonwealth

Eleventh Amendment

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.