The state of Massachusetts’ ban on what the state calls “assault-style” firearms has been a sticking level with gun-rights advocates since its passage final yr. Not solely does the legislation infringe on the constitutional rights of lawful residents within the Bay State, however it additionally offers lots of interpretive leeway to anti-gun politicians to find out which weapons are literally unlawful.
On August 21, the Nationwide Rifle Affiliation filed a lawsuit within the U.S. District Courtroom for the District of Massachusetts, East Division, difficult the ban. Becoming a member of the NRA within the motion, named Hanlon v. Campbell, are the Gun Homeowners’ Motion League (GOAL), Pioneer Valley Arms, three NRA members and one other particular person.
“Radical gun grabbers in Massachusetts have run roughshod on the Second Modification rights of law-abiding residents,” John Commerford, govt director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Motion (NRA-ILA), mentioned in an NRA information report. “These excessive and ill-conceived legal guidelines have created chaos within the Commonwealth, turning lawful gun homeowners into felons in a single day. Right now’s lawsuit filed by the NRA seeks to finish arbitrary bans on generally owned firearms and start the method of restoring the constitutional rights of Bay Staters.”
In line with the NRA report, Massachusetts usually prohibits the possession, possession, supply on the market, sale, or different switch of any firearm outlined as “assault-style.” An “assault-style” firearm is broadly outlined and features a myriad of the nation’s most typical semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns. The definition additionally contains any “copy or duplicate of any firearm” in any other case qualifying beneath the Act’s definition of “assault-style.”
Simply as troublesome, nevertheless, Massachusetts additionally bans “any firearm listed on the assault-style firearm roster.” This roster is meant to be compiled, revealed and distributed to all FDL holders and posted on-line 3 times per yr by the Secretary of the Govt Workplace of Public Security and Safety, who additionally has the authority to amend the roster upon his or her personal initiative.
“However the Secretary has not revealed the ‘assault-style’ firearms roster, nor introduced when such roster could also be revealed or which firearms it is going to embrace,” the report said. “The shortage of any such roster and the Secretary’s capacity to alter the roster at any time preclude anybody from realizing whether or not a firearm is or will turn into prohibited.”
The criticism states: “The Commonwealth’s ‘assault-style’ firearms ban, as carried out, overseen, and administered by Defendants, infringes the correct of the Commonwealth’s residents to maintain and bear arms which can be in widespread use for lawful functions. Consequently, the ‘assault-style’ firearms ban is unconstitutional.”
Within the criticism, the NRA explains that the legislation violates each the Second Modification as a result of it bans firearms in widespread use for lawful functions, together with the Fifth Modification as a result of an bizarre individual can’t perceive what firearms qualify as “assault-style.”
“The Act imposes novel restrictions on the firearms out there for lawful possession, acquisition, sale, or different switch inside the Commonwealth, and additional restricts firearms retailers’ capacity to get rid of present stock and to amass and register future stock,” the criticism additional states. “Chief amongst these restrictions is the Act’s normal prohibition on the possession, possession, supply on the market, sale, or different switch of any firearm newly outlined as ‘assault-style’ until it’s topic to an exemption.”
In the end, the plaintiffs request “declaratory and everlasting injunctive aid prohibiting Defendants from continued violations of the Particular person Plaintiffs’, Pioneer Valley Arms, and GOAL’s and the NRA’s members’ Second Modification rights, along with attorneys’ charges and prices.”
