The state of Massachusetts’ ban on what the state calls “assault-style” firearms has been a sticking point with gun-rights advocates since its passage last year. Not only does the law infringe on the constitutional rights of lawful citizens in the Bay State, but it also gives a lot of interpretive leeway to anti-gun politicians to determine which guns are actually illegal.
On August 21, the National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, East Division, challenging the ban. Joining the NRA in the action, named Hanlon v. Campbell, are the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL), Pioneer Valley Arms, three NRA members and another individual.
“Radical gun grabbers in Massachusetts have run roughshod on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” John Commerford, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), said in an NRA news report. “These extreme and ill-conceived laws have created chaos in the Commonwealth, turning lawful gun owners into felons overnight. Today’s lawsuit filed by the NRA seeks to end arbitrary bans on commonly owned firearms and begin the process of restoring the constitutional rights of Bay Staters.”
According to the NRA report, Massachusetts generally prohibits the possession, ownership, offer for sale, sale, or other transfer of any firearm defined as “assault-style.” An “assault-style” firearm is broadly defined and includes a myriad of the nation’s most common semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns. The definition also includes any “copy or duplicate of any firearm” otherwise qualifying under the Act’s definition of “assault-style.”
Just as troublesome, however, Massachusetts also bans “any firearm listed on the assault-style firearm roster.” This roster is supposed to be compiled, published and distributed to all FDL holders and posted online three times per year by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, who also has the authority to amend the roster upon his or her own initiative.
“But the Secretary has not published the ‘assault-style’ firearms roster, nor announced when such roster may be published or which firearms it will include,” the report stated. “The lack of any such roster and the Secretary’s ability to change the roster at any time preclude anyone from knowing whether a firearm is or will become prohibited.”
The complaint states: “The Commonwealth’s ‘assault-style’ firearms ban, as implemented, overseen, and administered by Defendants, infringes the right of the Commonwealth’s citizens to keep and bear arms that are in common use for lawful purposes. Consequently, the ‘assault-style’ firearms ban is unconstitutional.”
In the complaint, the NRA explains that the law violates both the Second Amendment because it bans firearms in common use for lawful purposes, along with the Fifth Amendment because an ordinary person cannot understand what firearms qualify as “assault-style.”
“The Act imposes novel restrictions on the firearms available for lawful possession, acquisition, sale, or other transfer within the Commonwealth, and further restricts firearms retailers’ ability to dispose of current inventory and to acquire and register future inventory,” the complaint further states. “Chief among these restrictions is the Act’s general prohibition on the possession, ownership, offer for sale, sale, or other transfer of any firearm newly defined as ‘assault-style’ unless it is subject to an exemption.”
Ultimately, the plaintiffs request “declaratory and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continued violations of the Individual Plaintiffs’, Pioneer Valley Arms, and GOAL’s and the NRA’s members’ Second Amendment rights, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Read the full article here
