David S Cohen, Author and Associate Professor of Law at the Earl Mack School of Law at Drexel featured Comm2A's Fletcher v. Haas in his MD Law Review article entitled "McDonald’s Paradoxical Legacy: State Restrictions of Non-Citizens’ Gun Rights". Even if we don't agree with the author's conclusions, we can't help but point out that the Commonwealth of MA did not appeal and the decision laid down by the court was consistent with the decision and positions of numerous courts around the country including the supreme court when it comes to extending fundamental rights protection to lawful immigrants. The Law review article opens:
The gun rights movement could not have found a better plaintiff than Eoin Pryal to challenge Massachusetts’ citizenship requirement for possessing firearms. Pryal is a citizen of the United Kingdom, where he was a rifleman in the British Territorial Army and obtained both a shotgun certificate and international dealer’s license, which allowed him to travel internationally with his own weapon for hunting. Now a lawful permanent resident of the United States living in Massachusetts, Pryal is an assistant firearms instructor at the Massa- chusetts Firearm School and a customer service representative at a local firearms manufacturer.2 Christopher Fletcher joined Pryal as a plaintiff in the challenge. Fletcher, also a lawful permanent resident, had lived in the United States for over fifteen years and had com- pleted firearms safety courses in both California and Massachusetts.
Pryal and Fletcher sued Massachusetts for their right to own and possess firearms, claiming that the state’s prohibition on lawful permanent residents owning and possessing firearms conflicted with the right found in the Second Amendment. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Second Amendment’s individual right to possess a gun for self-defense, which the Supreme Court found in Heller and incorporated against the states in McDonald, protected a lawful permanent resident’s right to bear arms and that the Massachusetts statutory scheme with respect to non-citizens violated that right. The district court found that the Second Amendment applies to non-citizens because the court read McDonald as incorporating the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause, which protects against states infringing on the rights of “persons.”
However, the court erred when it ignored the voting paradox within the McDonald decision...
Citation for the noted article:
David S. Cohen, McDonald’s Paradoxical Legacy: State Restrictions of Non-Citizens’ Gun Rights, 71 Md. L. Rev. 1219 (2012)