To be sure, Massachusetts’s prohibition on the commercial sale of common handguns qualifies as a ban. Massachusettsans—including Plaintiffs—are left only with the hopes of finding such arms through a secondhand market, where they lack knowledge of the seller or control over the price or condition of the firearm, if the firearm is available at all.
Because the Handgun Ban affects conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, it is presumptively unconstitutional. Massachusetts can overcome that presumption only by demonstrating that its regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. It is not.
First, the Supreme Court has already held that bans on common arms are inconsistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and flatly unconstitutional. And Massachusetts does not deny that the banned handguns are common. Moreover, all bearable arms are prima facie protected, and—especially without making such an argument—Massachusetts cannot overcome that presumption by proving that the banned arms [are] dangerous and unusual as they must be to lose constitutional protection.
Second, to the extent that a deeper historical analysis may be required, Massachusetts has not and cannot point to any “relevantly similar” historical analogue that would justify the Handgun Ban as consistent with this Nation’s tradition of firearms regulations.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the right to obtain and possess other weapons or exercise self-defense through other means is no answer to a ban on the possession of common arms. So, the availability of the handguns that Massachusetts happens to approve cannot justify its ban on handguns commonly owned and used across the country.
While Plaintiffs’ Complaint makes out a strong case against the Handgun Ban, the reality is, they need only state a plausible case for relief at this early stage of the litigation, and they have surely done so.
— Firearms Policy Coalition brief in Granata v. Healey
FPC is fucking awesome
Be prepared to ride this for the long haul, FPC. CA’s own handgun roster has been in force since 2013. But wait!…if a LEO sells you his “off roster” gun, it’s suddenly safe for you to own. Or if someone moves from out of state into CA and brings an “off roster”, it’s okay. Or if one of your family relatives who lives outside CA sells/transfers it to you, it’s okay. They’re all magically safe. But a retailer FFL cannot, because science, logic, and gremlins.
I’m honestly surprised CA’s version has lasted this long and hasn’t been ousted long ago.
Its probably not going to last much longer.
Lot of movement in the courts and mostly a waiting game on the states running out of appeals stays and excuses to delay. Took me the better part of a decade just to own a pistol with our permit system. I wonder if it will take as long to carry in NYC.
Mass is just a de-facto British Colony.
They do luv them some eurowussies.
What say you Ralph???
Been here all my life and a lawyer/FFL for decades. I can’t sell you a new retail Glock for $550 but I can sell you a used, cop turn-in for $750. The AG created this list under the guise of “consumer protection”, so she mandated certain metallurgy, a drop test, manual safety, loaded chamber indicator, minimum trigger weight, etc. It’s just to keep affordable autos out of the hands of poor people.
Did I also mention the semi auto rifle ban and 10 round mag limit we have?
Post Bruin I am very happy your state is in our Circuit court. We have so many variations of nonsense to make unconstitutional together and they are different enough that our respective legislatures will have fits trying to get creative.
Correction as coffee kicks in that is CT………….well at least you and VT can get that mag cap thrown out together.
………..ok might be a back to bed kind of day well RI I guess and no idea what they have going on.
I had the great displeasure of residing in MA for a year as a result of a great job opportunity. As soon as my lease was expired, I seized the opportunity to purchase a home in NH. The gun laws are asinine, the wait period to obtain a permit to legally possess my own personal property was out of the realm of reasonable, and the state’s continued resistance to firearms ownership is beyond comprehension. F MA.
Which computer company did you work for? Lets say I did a few trips to Hopkington and Franklin back in the day.
I’ve spent summers in Franklin, at my grandfather’s family home on the 300 block of Lincoln Street…
A federal job. Utterly lack the skills to work in the computer industry.
Organized crime and ludicrous gun control go hand in hand…
An armed citizenry is not what you want if your business is extortion, intimidation and corruption.
Oh look ,quick pawk the caw. Possums Custom HiPoints sale, Only $699.99
No paperwork
Downunder we have an approved list of firearms for “Category C and D” license. Most of the D class self-loading firearms are way long out of production such as the Ruger .44mag carbine.
The only Aussie gun owner I ever met attempted to explain what is legal there and I vaguely remember that lever action shotguns were borderline assault weapons but easier to get than pump actions let alone any kind of pistol. A lot of beer was involved so I know I would need a refresher on that set of madness as it even made New York City sound easy.
Comments are closed.