MA GUN LAWYER

In Capen v. Campbell, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant Second Amendment decision on April 17, 2025, addressing a constitutional challenge to Massachusetts’ ban on what are dubiously called “assault weapons” and so called “large-capacity” magazines (LCMs). The challenged statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131M, prohibits the sale, possession, or transfer of assault weapons and LCMs not lawfully possessed prior to September 13, 1994. The law incorporates definitions from the now-lapsed 1994 federal “assault weapons” ban and includes specific references to firearms such as the Colt AR-15 and AK-style rifles, as well as magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

On appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s  decision.  The appellate court began by considering the “assault weapons” ban, focusing primarily on the Colt AR-15, which the plaintiffs identified as a central example of a prohibited weapon. The court found that while AR-15-style rifles may be owned by many Americans, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that these weapons are commonly used for self-defense. The court emphasized that prevalence alone does not entitle a weapon to constitutional protection if it poses unique risks to public safety and lacks traditional defensive utility.  

This raises extraordinarily disconcerting questions:  Does the government get to decide what firearms are acceptable for defensive use?   How is what is falsely called an “assault weapon” like the Colt AR-15 any different from any other given semiautomatic rifle platform?   If the government can ban this platform on the value judgment that it is not at some opaque sufficient threshold of “defensive utility,” what is there to stop it from banning any firearm whatsoever on these grounds?   Is a .22 rifle (or handgun) of any greater “defensive utility”? If not, why can’t that be banned as well, consistent with the 2nd Amendment?

Evidence in the record described the AR-15 as supposedly disproportionately dangerous in mass shooting scenarios and poorly suited for ordinary self-defense due to its design, penetration capabilities, and capacity for rapid fire.  

This begs the question:   Of the total number of homicides per year where a firearm is used (around 10,000 or so), a few hundred or so involve a long gun of any type.   What are falsely called “assault rifles” by the anti-gun-rights folks are an even smaller number.   So, by the US First Circuit Court of Appeals’ logic, what would prevent the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any other state from banning large swaths of handguns on these same grounds?   After all, why aren’t they too “disproportionately dangerous,” given that a vastly higher percentage of homicides where a gun is used involve handguns?

In affirming the District Court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, the First Circuit left Massachusetts’ assault weapons and LCM restrictions intact. The decision is part of a growing body of post-Bruen appellate rulings that uphold these firearms bans. While the litigation may continue at the merits stage, the court’s opinion makes clear that the plaintiffs face an uphill battle in overturning Massachusetts’ longstanding gun control laws.   The last hope to rectify this is the United States Supreme Court.    That Court has shown an acute disinterest in doing little other than standing by as the states become emboldened by its inaction.

This case illustrates precisely why Massachusetts lawmakers yet further expanded the definition of “assault weapons” last year.

It is highly dubious that that definition’s parameters have yet to be satisfied, from their perspective.

Or ever will be.