Massachusetts Assault Weapon Ban Upheld by First Circuit Judges

A Second Amendment challenge to a Massachusetts law banning assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices is unlikely to succeed, the First Circuit held Thursday.

“The Massachusetts Ban’s AR-15 restriction does not impose a heavy burden on civilian self-defense,” US Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann, sitting by designation with the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, wrote in an opinion. The challengers “do not demonstrate a single instance where the AR-15—or any other banned weapon—has actually been used in a self-defense scenario,” the opinion said.

The court, in affirming a lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, rejected the “implied premise” brought by plaintiff Joseph Capen and the National Association for Gun Rights that “the loss of nearly one thousand lives” due to mass shootings “is an insufficient basis for regulation.”

The ruling contributes to growing case law around what kinds of weapons regulations are allowed under the US Supreme Court’s rulings in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and US v. Rahimi.

The First Circuit last year upheld Rhode Island’s ban on large capacity magazines.

Bruen asks courts weighing the constitutionality of a regulation to decide whether the regulated conduct is covered by the Second Amendment, and whether the government has proved the law is consistent with the historical tradition of regulating weapons.

Since Massachusetts’ ban is consistent with historical tradition, the First Circuit said the law’s challengers are unlikely to succeed regardless of whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the use of assault weapons.

The assault weapon ban “does not place a historically anomalous burden on self-defense” when compared to historic bans on gunpowder, trap guns, long-bladed knives, clubs, and sawed-off shotguns, the opinion said.

Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman also sat on the panel.

Arrington Law Firm represents Capen. The attorney general’s office represents the state.

The case is Capen v. Campbell, 1st Cir., No. 24-01061, 4/17/25.