In layman’s terms: Activist appeals court upholds Massachusetts ban on popular semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines.
Activist court rulings on the Second Amendment are becoming blatantly obvious for their bias, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruling this week that bans on popular rifles and standard capacity magazines are “not unconstitutional.”
On April 17, in the case of Capen v. Campbell, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction challenging Massachusetts’ ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” (LCMs).
The decision is in response to a challenge to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131M, which prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of certain semiautomatic firearms and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition or five shotgun shells.
The case was brought by plaintiffs, Joseph R. Capen, a Massachusetts resident, and the National Association for Gun Rights, and filed in September 2022.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the preliminary injunction in December 2023, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. The plaintiffs appealed, leading to the First Circuit’s review, which reaffirmed the District Court’s order.
The First Circuit opinion, authored by Judge Katzmann who wrote for a three-judge panel, concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in proving that the Massachusetts ban violates the Second Amendment.
As usual, the court gives a nod to Bruen, and then proceeds to misinterpret the ruling in the most egregious manner possible. Where did Katzmann find his historical precedent for banning the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle explicitly prohibited by Massachusetts law?
The historical regulations the Commonwealth cites in this case are analogous to the Massachusetts Ban because of their shared justification as measures “to protect the public from the danger caused by weapons that create a particular public safety threat.”
Of course, no such tradition exists and, under Bruen, interest-balancing tests and “in the name of public safety” are completely invalid.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell was elated with the court’s decision and called it “…a tremendous victory for our state.”
