From the Firearms Policy Coalition . . .
Three days after it secured a historic victory in a post-trial judgment striking down California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today filed a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’ ban on constitutionally protected, modern handguns commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes throughout the United States. The complaint can be found at FPCLegal.org.
In addition to state laws requiring that gun owners obtain a Firearms Identification Card or License to Carry Firearms, Massachusetts also prohibits the commercial sale of handguns that are not on its “Approved Handgun Roster” nor prohibited by Attorney General Maura Healey’s “Handgun Sales Regulations.” As a result, Massachusetts residents are prevented from purchasing a large number of popular makes and models of constitutionally protected handguns.
FPC’s complaint alleges that the state’s laws and regulations “effectively operat[e] as a bar to the exercise of the fundamental right to bear protected arms,” which “violate[s] Plaintiffs’ rights, and the rights of those similarly situated, under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.” In addition, the complaint observes that “some of Massachusetts’ ‘safety’ requirements, such as the mandated 10-lb. trigger pull… make handguns so outfitted more difficult to operate effectively and thus more difficult to operate safely.”
“The state of Massachusetts and Attorney General Healey unconstitutionally infringe upon the fundamental, individual Second Amendment rights of the People by restricting them from acquiring the common, modern handgun of their choice for self-defense,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “Massachusetts’ laws do not support public safety and cannot survive any constitutionally appropriate mode of scrutiny. Rather, the state’s laws prevent people from exercising their rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Such clearly unjust, unconstitutional laws cannot be permitted to stand, and we look forward to vindicating the rights of our clients and all law-abiding Bay State residents.”
“Through this and other strategic actions, we are putting recalcitrant government officials on notice: If you ban constitutionally protected firearms or conduct, we are coming for you. The days of governments doing whatever they wish to impose expansive, unconstitutional gun control laws are numbered. FPC and our members will work tirelessly to bring your tyrannical efforts to a crashing halt. We are committed to restoring human liberty and freedom using every available resource. Massachusetts, and indeed all states, must comply with the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment, period,” commented FPC President Brandon Combs.
Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.
Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:
- A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history
- A brief supporting certiorari in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court
- A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)
- A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
- A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
- A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
- A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)
- A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)
- A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
- A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)
- A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
- A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
- A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
- A challenge to Pennsylvania’s laws completely denying the right to carry to individuals who were previously granted relief from prior non-violent convictions and are not currently prohibited from possessing firearms (Suarez v. Evanchick)