A three‑judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Massachusetts’ ban on so‑called “assault weapons,” ruling that the state’s prohibition is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The decision stands in sharp contrast to the Third Circuit’s recent en banc ruling, which held that New Jersey’s similar ban violates the Second Amendment. With multiple circuit courts now split on the issue, these bans are expected to face scrutiny from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has already granted certiorari in several Second Amendment cases and is likely to hear oral arguments this fall, with a decision anticipated next summer.
Despite the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling, which requires modern gun regulations to be justified by historical analogs, the First Circuit appeared unmoved by the direction of recent federal jurisprudence.
The panel concluded that Massachusetts has a “historical tradition” of regulating weapons deemed to pose heightened public danger, even citing statements from former Governor Mitt Romney when he signed the state’s permanent ban in 2004.
In its opinion, the court wrote (emphasis added):
“As for the second consideration, we concluded that the justification for the ban was analogous to justifications that have ‘underpinned a tradition of weapon regulation throughout American history.’ Capen, 134 F.4th at 672. We noted that when a permanent enactment of the ban was being signed in 2004, then‑Governor Mitt Romney stated that the ban was justified because assault weapons are ‘instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people’ and that a corresponding press release stated the ban ‘will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe.’ Id. at 671. We found that the ban ‘reflect[ed] a common concern regarding “the State’s responsibility to protect the public from the danger caused by weapons that create a particular public safety threat.”’ Id. at 672.”
The panel also rejected the arguments brought by Gino Mario Recchia, owner of Mass Armament, who challenged the ban on constitutional grounds. The court dismissed his claims and reaffirmed its earlier reasoning from Capen v. Campbell, concluding that Massachusetts’ law survives scrutiny under Bruen’s historical‑tradition test.
With multiple federal circuits now issuing conflicting interpretations of Bruen, the Supreme Court is poised to determine whether bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and magazines can stand under the Second Amendment.
Note: Thumbnail image from Mass Armament LLC Facebook page.
Leave a Reply