US appeals court rules assault weapon ban not unconstitutional – JURIST
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Thursday held that a Massachusetts law banning the sale, transfer, or possession of an assault weapon is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. This decision comes after Massachusetts resident, Joseph Capen, contended that he was planning on purchasing items covered by the law for purposes of self-defense.
Judge Gary Katzmann, writing for a three-judge panel, wrote that the court first needed to consider whether the Massachusetts law was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” and thus allowable under the Second Amendment. Katzmann held that the ban on AR-15 models in particular did not unduly burden civilian self-defense, particularly because Capen and other appellants failed to show any instances where these models have been used in self-defense scenarios.
Second, Katzmann emphasized the longstanding tradition of regulating and often outright banning of “specific weapons once it became clear that they posed a unique danger to public safety, including mass deaths and violent crime unrelated to self-defense.” Interpreting the US Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the First Circuit held that if certain laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address certain issues, there is a strong presumption that current laws doing the same fall within “a permissible category of regulations.”
Finally, the court noted that its ruling was not inconsistent with the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which extended the Second Amendment right to bear arms to individuals, apart from any military purpose. Heller specifically noted that the Second Amendment right was not unlimited and did not necessarily pertain to weapons “designed for military use.”
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said that the court’s decision “is a tremendous victory for our state.” Hannah Hill, the executive director of the Gun Rights Foundation, said in a post that the decision was “full of absolute defiance of Bruen.”
