Capen v. Campbell, 134 F.4th 660

Plaintiffs Joseph R. Capen and the National Association for Gun Rights challenged Massachusetts General Laws ch. 140, § 131M, which bans the sale, transfer, and possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines (LCMs).
Capen claimed he would purchase these banned items for self-defense if not for the threat of prosecution. The Association claimed its members would also do so.
Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the ban violates the Second Amendment, and asked for preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement.
The District Court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits under the Bruen historical-tradition test.
Plaintiffs appealed to the First Circuit, which reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of assault weapons ban	Ban violates Second Amendment by prohibiting common-use arms for lawful purposes.	Ban fits within historical tradition of regulating dangerous/unusual weapons posing public safety threats.	Denial of injunction affirmed; ban consistent with tradition, plaintiffs unlikely to succeed.
Constitutionality of LCM ban	LCMs are commonly owned/accessories, ban violates the right to armed self-defense.	LCM restrictions have historical analogues (e.g., powder bans, club/Bowie knife restrictions).	Denial of injunction affirmed; Ocean State Tactical controls, ban not likely unconstitutional.
Facial challenge to statute	Law invalid in all applications where it prohibits protected arms, including some handguns.	Specific bans on subsets of weapons are different than total bans; plaintiffs did not identify all regulated weapons as protected arms.	Facially invalid only if no constitutional application; found not the case here, so facial challenge fails.
Standing (Association)	Association represents affected members.	No specific member identified as injured in complaint.	Standing for Capen; Association's standing not resolved but not dismissed at this stage.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment permits regulation of dangerous and unusual weapons; total handgun ban unconstitutional)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2022) (Second Amendment targets text, history, tradition; regulations must fit historical tradition)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (U.S. 2024) (Modern firearms regulations must analogize to founding-era tradition, but not require identical laws)
Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, 95 F.4th 38 (1st Cir. 2024) (Upholding LCM ban using Bruen framework and historical analogues)