Draper v. Healey, 827 F.3d 1

Massachusetts regulation proscribes transfer of handguns lacking a "load indicator" (940 Mass. Code Regs. 16.05(3)); a "load indicator" is defined as a device that "plainly indicates that a cartridge is in the firing chamber."
Attorney General notified dealers/consumers that Glock third- and fourth-generation pistols lack an adequate load indicator.
Firearms dealers and consumers, joined by two advocacy groups, brought a pre-enforcement § 1983 challenge: dealers and consumers alleged the rule is void-for-vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment; consumers also alleged a Second Amendment violation.
The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6); the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and others appealed along with the dealers/consumers.
First Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: SAF lacked associational standing for failure to identify an injured member; dealers’ as-applied vagueness claim failed because the phrase "plainly indicates" gives fair notice; consumers’ derivative Second Amendment claim was dismissed accordingly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Associational standing of Second Amendment Foundation	SAF may sue on behalf of members without naming a specific injured member; affidavit suffices	SAF must identify at least one injured member in the complaint/affidavit to establish standing	Dismissed SAF for lack of standing because no member was identified
Vagueness (due process) of "plainly indicates" as applied to Glock pistols	Phrase is too vague to give fair notice; AG's position leaves dealers unsure which designs comply	Definition gives fair notice: requires a readily perceptible signal; Glocks’ indicators are not "plain" on the record	As-applied vagueness claim failed; phrase affords fair notice; Glocks likely violate the rule
Need for regulatory design/specification	Commonwealth must provide precise design specifications to satisfy due process	No constitutional requirement to supply detailed blueprints; reasonable breadth in language is permissible	Rejected plaintiffs’ demand for design specs; statutes/regs need not be that detailed
Second Amendment claim (consumers)	Rule infringes consumers’ right by preventing purchase of Glocks	Claim derivative on vagueness dismissal; no independent Second Amendment injury proved	Dismissed as derivative of the dismissed due-process claim

Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (association must identify an injured member to establish standing)
Chiang v. Skeirik, 582 F.3d 238 (standard of de novo review for dismissal)
United States v. Zhen Zhou Wu, 711 F.3d 1 (vagueness challenges outside First Amendment are as-applied)
F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307 (fair-notice vagueness standard; semantic certainty not required)
URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett, 631 F.3d 1 (upholding imprecise statutory language against vagueness challenge)