{"id":109763,"date":"2025-05-02T16:25:33","date_gmt":"2025-05-02T21:25:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=109763"},"modified":"2025-05-02T16:25:33","modified_gmt":"2025-05-02T21:25:33","slug":"109763","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=109763","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

First Circuit Rules in Favor of Massachusetts Assault Weapons and Magazine Ban<\/a><\/p>\n

A federal appeals court determined Massachusetts\u2019 ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines aligns with historical firearm regulation and doesn\u2019t violate the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, confirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against Massachusetts\u2019 law prohibiting the sale of so-called \u201cassault weapons\u201d such as the AR-15 and magazines that hold over ten rounds. The court found that its\u00a0previous decision<\/a>\u00a0upholding a similar Rhode Island magazine ban also applied to Massachusetts\u2019 restrictions on firearms.<\/p>\n

\n
Judge Gary Katzmann wrote<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0Capen v. Campbell<\/i>, \u201cA straightforward application of our prior holding in Ocean State Tactical supports the Commonwealth\u2019s demonstration that the Massachusetts Ban\u2019s AR-15 restriction \u2018is consistent with the Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u2019\u201d He added, \u201cThis means that Appellants have failed to demonstrate at this stage that the Ban is unconstitutional in all its applications.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

This decision follows a pattern of appellate courts upholding state-level bans on certain firearms and magazines since the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark\u00a0New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/i>\u00a0ruling in 2022.<\/i><\/p>\n

The Bruen decision changed the landscape for Second Amendment legal challenges by now requiring firearm regulations to abide by the nation\u2019s \u201chistorical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d This new framework has opened new avenues for gun owners to challenge AWBs and magazine bans in solid blue states. That said, the courts have still placed obstacles for gun owners seeking to roll back unconstitutional gun control measures.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Shortly after the Bruen ruling, U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore\u00a0issued<\/a>\u00a0a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Superior, Colorado\u2019s ordinance prohibiting AR-15s and magazines over 10 rounds. The court rejected the town\u2019s argument that such weapons are \u201cdangerous and unusual,\u201d calling attention to their widespread lawful use and the lack of historical precedent for the implementation of such bans at the local level. Judge Moore alluded to Bruen\u2019s emphasis on text and tradition, writing that the town\u2019s public safety justification did not trump constitutional rights. While the TRO was limited to 14 days, the case marked the beginning of an early wave of judicial skepticism toward municipal AWBs through the use of the Bruen framework.<\/p>\n

With respect to Oregon,\u00a0Arnold v. Kotek<\/i><\/a>, an Oregon state court permanently enjoined Measure 114, a 2024 ballot initiative that led to the ban of magazines holding over 10 rounds and the imposition of a permit-to-purchase system. Judge Robert Raschio\u00a0ruled<\/a> the law violated the Oregon Constitution\u2019s right to bear arms, finding that high-capacity magazines have a valid use in the context of modern self-defense and that the state failed to demonstrate a historical tradition for such restrictions.<\/p>\n

Though the Oregon Court of Appeals later\u00a0reversed<\/a>\u00a0this decision, the case underscores how Bruen\u2019s logic has continued to influence state-level challenges.<\/p>\n

In Illinois\u2019 case, in\u00a0Barnett v. Raoul<\/i>, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn\u00a0ruled<\/a>\u00a0last November that Illinois\u2019 statewide ban on assault weapons and magazines holding over 10\u201315 rounds violated the Second Amendment. The court determined that AR-15-style rifles and similar firearms are commonly owned and used by citizens for legal purposes, including self-defense, and thus fall under Second Amendment protection.<\/p>\n

Judge McGlynn stressed that the state failed to identify historical analogues for banning weapons widely used by law-abiding citizens, as dictated by Bruen. However, the decision was\u00a0stayed<\/a>\u00a0for 30 days pending appeal, but the 7th Circuit later allowed the ban to remain in place temporarily while the appeals process goes on.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Going back to Massachusetts, the state can continue enforcing its firearms and magazine restrictions. The plaintiffs may either appeal the decision or return to district court to argue the case on its merits. The legislation being challenged is the 2024 Act Modernizing Firearms Laws (Chapter 135\/H.4885), which Gov. Maura Healey (D) signed last July.\u00a0 The legislation\u00a0replaced<\/a>\u00a0\u201cassault weapon\u201d with \u201cassault-style firearm\u201d and broadened definitions to include firearms with interchangeable parts or receivers compatible with prohibited models. Additionally, the bill\u00a0mandated<\/a>\u00a0serialization and registration of all firearms, including privately manufactured \u201cghost guns,\u201d within strict timelines, while also reinforcing the 10-round limit for detachable magazines and introducing new penalties for non-compliance.<\/p>\n

With this decision in the books, Massachusetts maintains some of the nation\u2019s toughest gun laws, pending any further appeals. While the post-Bruen era offers new opportunities for gun owners to resist gun grabs in blue states through litigation, these legal battles will be protracted and costly in nature. Restoring gun rights in the most hostile jurisdictions toward the right to self-defense will be no walk in the park.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

First Circuit Rules in Favor of Massachusetts Assault Weapons and Magazine Ban A federal appeals court determined Massachusetts\u2019 ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines aligns with historical firearm regulation and doesn\u2019t violate the Second Amendment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, confirmed the denial of a … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-crap-for-brains","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109763","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=109763"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109763\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":109764,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109763\/revisions\/109764"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=109763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=109763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=109763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}