Second Amendment doesn't give out-of-staters the right to just drive around Massachusetts with a gun and no gun license, court rules

I should start a business on the NH/MA border (or really, on the border between any civilized state and gun dipshit state) where I store guns in lockers for people so that they can enter the civilized state without violating their laws, then can recover their small (expletive) compensation instruments for the duration of their travel back through the gun dipshit state.

Also what, pray tell, does this jerkoff do for a living where he needs to bring a piece to work?  

"If you bring a gun to work again without telling me, I'll stick it up your (expletive) sideways." - Mike Ehrmantraut

Had these people secured their firearms in a locked trunk or container, there would be no issue. The law specifically states that you can travel through the state with your firearm if you meet this criteria. And, since Bruen in 2022, MA is a "shall issue" state, and even has a permitting process for non-residents, out-of-staters can still carry and be within the bounds of the law. If you want to carry your firearm, live in NH, and work in MA, go through the permitting process. 

I can't defend every single gun law MA has on the books. For example, classifying barrel shrouds as an "assault weapon" feature is pretty asinine, and does nothing to protect the safety of the public while just making it harder for law-abiding citizens to own firearms for hunting, personal protection, sporting, etc. Gun registration, large-capacity feeding devices, storage requirements, etc all do more to protect the public than defining "evil features" of certain firearms. I say this as a card-carrying leftist, not some gun-nut. 

I'm glad these buffoons are facing consequences. Owning a firearm and carrying it is a serious responsibility, and if you can't follow the law and are careless about it, then maybe you shouldn't be carrying. 

“…shall be infringed…”

1. Why did a judge even need to rule on this? States have been regulating gun ownership and licensing for quite some time now. If Second Amendment morons challenged it with nothing except "But 2A!" then they wasted our time and money. Again.
2. All the dumb-dumbs who keep talking about fighting tyranny are the ones who will join the Nazis and the authoritarian state, should one arise. They're not going to use their personal weapons to lead the revolution, they're going to use them to kill the freedom fighters. Some of them are already salivating over it. Bunch of Kyle Rittenhouse wannabes.
3. The "we need guns to overthrow a despotic state" argument has been garbage for the last hundred years. We can't let regular old idiots own, store, train with, or use man-portable anti-aircraft missile launchers, and boy howdy would the good guys need them to overthrow the US government when it turns evil. That, and a huge arsenal of other weaponry. You can't afford the hardware, you can't be trusted to keep the hardware, you can't securely store the hardware, you can't maintain the skills necessary to use the hardware, and when the time comes, you can't be trusted to deploy the hardware. So stop talking as if the Glock that's poorly secured in your bedroom is a cruise missile. You're probably dreaming of using it on Antifa kids anyway.
4. If the USA's leadership turns tyrant and orders the US military to harm citizens and become the fourth Reich, the only hope that good people will have is that factions within the US military side with the people (and the constitution) against the tyrants. In that scenario, good-guy trained fighters will do the arm-bearing against tyranny. It's like the libertarian version of the fire department: if you don't want the government to run the fire department with taxes, your Ayn Rand utopia is still going to need someone to do it in exchange for money. "Private companies," libertarians reply. Okay. Private citizens would need to pay insurance premiums to private firefighting companies to protect not only their property but surrounding properties, like some sort of homeowners' association, so that the overall area could OH WAIT I'M DESCRIBING A GOVERNMENT-RUN FIRE DEPARTMENT. The libertarian solutions to all these problems just get closer and closer to a government the more functional they become. The same is true for a local militia.
5. So if you want to have a chance of resisting the fall of the US government, everyone in our military needs to have a strong oath to the constitution and the people, not just a slavish adherence to the chain of command. They need to have strong roots in local communities, so they see their non-military neighbors as friends and allies. They need to know that if they follow orders to attack us, they'll be harming people they and their fellow soldiers care about. That way, if the dreaded time comes, they'll pause, and think. Modern warfare requires expensive weapons and trained personnel, not losers who want to shoot everyone who doesn't like them. If the 2nd amendment was really going to ensure that non-military citizens could resist tyranny, those non-military citizens would have to form a... military. It would come with all the same problems, costs and benefits of the US military. Frickin' Plato was trying to address these issues thousands of years ago: how do you have a city where one guy can be a farmer and another guy can be a shoemaker, without having to also personally guard the city walls against an attack? It's not simple. Conservatives need it to be simple, because they committed to simple answers a long time ago, and for them it isn't about fighting tyranny, or respecting the constitution, or being the good guys. It's about not having to change. It's about not having to say they're sorry for enabling the USA's gun murders, or any other damn thing they ever did wrong. It's about trying to fall asleep at night despite being a shameful failure, and knowing it deep down inside.

Being a conservative has nothing to do with gun rights or abortion or gay people or fiscal responsibility, and it never has. Here's the real definition of a conservative: a conservative is someone who desperately wants to be loved, and who is desperately against changing themselves - and their resistance to changing is just a tiny bit stronger than their need for love. They demand to be liked and refuse to be likable. That's it. That is what leads them to hardcore religion, and Ayn Rand, and Republicans, and BitCoin, and Joe Rogan, and Elon Musk, and Donald Trump, and Vladimir Putin, and every huckster in the world who tells them that they're good little boys and girls and that they don't need to apologize, they just need to fork over their money and power and respectability.

It's a tale as old as time. Five thousand years ago, when the balance tipped too far into conservatism, a city destroyed itself and became a ruin that tourists visit today. If it happens again tomorrow, the same insecure babies will have nuclear weapons. I'd rather get hit by that blessed meteor than listen to a bunch of babies whine at me while they torture me to death.

Take Texas for example: In Texas, individuals 21 years of age or older who are not otherwise prohibited by law can carry a handgun openly or concealed without a license. But they still will issue you a license to carry if you request one. 

While a license is no longer required to carry a handgun in Texas license to carry holders receive some advantages, such as being able to carry firearms in some places where unlicensed carry is not allowed.

I'm willing to bet New Hampshire does the same thing.