New Hampshire is leading an effort from 25 states to challenge a Massachusetts gun law, and this month, they’re taking it to the Supreme Court.

The centerpiece of the argument is the Pheasant Lane Mall in Nashua, N.H., which reaches across state lines into Tyngsborough. If shoppers park on the south side of the mall’s parking lot, they might end up crossing state lines during a visit.

The attorneys general of New Hampshire and 24 other Republican-led states say this poses a potential problem for firearm holders. A New Hampshire resident who is legally carrying a firearm on their home state’s side of the parking lot may inadvertently be breaking the law when they cross the lot into Massachusetts, where it is illegal to carry without a permit.

Joining New Hampshire are the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, who are calling the arrangement unconstitutional. The states have rallied behind Phillip Marquis of Rochester, N.H., to ask the Supreme Court to protect out-of-state residents from Massachusetts’ firearms regulations.

“The geography of the mall is such that a New Hampshire resident might find themselves in Massachusetts if she parks on the south side of the parking lot or visits Buffalo Wild Wings,” reads a brief from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office to the Supreme Court. “If that person is carrying a firearm without a Massachusetts license — which would be constitutionally protected activity in most of the mall—that person risks being charged as a felon and facing mandatory incarceration in Massachusetts.”

The trouble began for Marquis in 2022 when he was in a car accident in Massachusetts, according to the brief. When police arrived, he informed them that he had a pistol on him and was subsequently charged with carrying a firearm without a license.

Marquis previously sued the Commonwealth for the burdens that Massachusetts’ firearms permit law creates on out-of-state visitors, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied his claims. They ruled in March that the state’s nonresident firearms licensing laws were constitutional, according to court documents.

Claiming that the Massachusetts court denied him his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Marquis has petitioned the Supreme Court to federally overrule that court’s decision. In his petition, Marquis invoked New York State Rifle & Police Association, Inc. v. Bruen, where the court established that state firearms restrictions must be covered by the Second Amendment or adhere to historical firearms regulations.

Using Bruen, Marquis and the Republican attorneys general supporting him are aiming to prove that there is no justification for applying Massachusetts’ firearms restrictions to out-of-state residents and that to do so would be unconstitutional. However, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court found the law constitutional even under Bruen because it intends to prevent dangerous people from obtaining firearms, just as historical regulations have done.

“To the extent that the Commonwealth restricts the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms within its borders, the justification for so doing is credible, individualized evidence that the person in question would pose a danger if armed,” the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision read. “Both case law and the historical record unequivocally indicate that this justification is consistent with ‘the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”

It’s not immediately clear if the Supreme Court will respond to Marquis’ appeal or when it will make any kind of decision, but lower courts are at something of a crossroads with how and when to apply Bruen to gun possession cases. As such, they are looking to the Supreme Court for a more definitive answer.

Since the proof of historical context that Bruen requires has led to some uncertainty, any ruling that these lower courts make is likely to amount to a partisan decision. However, if the Supreme Court provides more substantive clarity in a response to Marquis, these lower courts just might find the answer they are seeking.