The First Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld Massachusetts’ ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines in a ruling that is sure to be overturned at some point.
The ruling comes after Massachusetts resident Joseph R. Capen with the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) filed a lawsuit against state Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell over the ban.
The plaintiffs contend that the ban violates the Second Amendment under the framework of the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.”
They argued that the law bans firearms that are “in common use” by millions of law-abiding Americans. They also point out that there is no historical tradition of imposing laws that ban entire classes of popular long guns or rifles as required by the Bruen ruling.
However, the court disagreed, claiming that the law is consistent with America’s tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons that could pose a unique threat to public safety.
🚨 The First Circuit has upheld Massachusetts' 2024 assault weapons ban, finding that it is bound by a previous panel's ruling that upheld the ban under the Second Amendment. The panel also rejected dormant Commerce Clause and Equal Protection claims. pic.twitter.com/R9GZasfCfR
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) July 22, 2026
The state argued that there are historical analogues to the current law, citing 18th and 19th century bans on gunpowder storage, trap guns, Bowie knives, clubs, sawed-off shotguns, and machine guns demonstrate that the government has long restricted specific categories of firearms. It also contended that AR-15-style rifles only impose a small burden on self-defense, noting that there are few instances of people using these guns for self-defense.
The court’s ruling sounds more like politicking than actual legal analysis. The truth is that the state’s and court’s argument falls apart like a house of cards in a blizzard in the face of the two Supreme Court rulings.
For starters, AR-15-style rifles are among the most commonly owned firearms in America, with estimates of 20 to 30 million in civilian hands. This means the Heller decision protects them. Also, there are no founding-era or early-American traditions of banning entire classes of popular civilian long guns or rifles. In fact, historical surveys have shown such bans are virtually nonexistent.
The state’s argument about knives, clubs, trap guns, and others are not similar to this ban in terms of the burden they impose on ordinary self-defense or the nature of the guns themselves. To put it simply, those particular rules weren’t nearly as sweeping as what Massachusetts is trying to accomplish.
This is what judicial activism looks like. But there is good news. The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear two cases involving similar bans on so-called assault rifles passed in Illinois and Connecticut. If the court strikes these down, it could have a fatal impact on Massachusetts’ attempt to violate Second Amendment rights.