95 F.4th 38
1st Cir.2024Background
- Rhode Island enacted HB 6614 in 2022, banning possession of large capacity magazines (LCMs) holding more than 10 rounds, with limited exceptions.
- Plaintiffs, a group of gun owners and a firearms dealer, challenged the law, alleging it violated the Second, Fifth (Takings), and Fourteenth (Due Process) Amendments.
- The District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they were unlikely to succeed on their constitutional claims.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the First Circuit, seeking to halt enforcement of the ban during litigation.
- The First Circuit reviewed the denial under an abuse of discretion standard, focusing on likelihood of success on the merits as the key preliminary injunction factor.
- The case concerned the intersection of historical firearm regulation, modern mass shooting concerns, and established constitutional doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second Amendment | LCM ban violates right to bear arms; LCMs are commonly possessed and thus protected "arms." | Ban targets lethality, not self-defense; LCMs seldom used in self-defense, analogous to past weapon bans. | Ban does not meaningfully burden self-defense right; justified and consistent with historical regulation. |
| Fifth Amendment Takings | Forced surrender/disposal/modification of LCMs is a compensable physical taking. | No physical taking; owners can sell, transfer, or modify mags; restriction is a permissible police power use. | HB 6614 is neither a physical nor a regulatory taking; no compensation required. |
| Fourteenth Amendment Due Process | Law is impermissibly retroactive (applies to previously acquired mags), and is vague (poorly defined terms). | Law is prospective, with a grace period, and terms are commonly understood by ordinary people. | Law is neither retroactive nor unconstitutionally vague; due process claim rejected. |
| Preliminary Injunction | Injunction warranted due to constitutional violations causing irreparable harm. | No likelihood of success on merits; public safety supports enforcement. | Preliminary injunction properly denied due to failure to meet likelihood of success on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (landmark case recognizing individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, limiting bans on "quintessential self-defense weapons;")
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2010) (incorporating the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller against the states)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2022) (articulating "text and history" test for Second Amendment challenges)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1939) (excluding certain "dangerous and unusual" weapons from Second Amendment protection)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (defining regulatory takings and compensation duty)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (establishing preliminary injunction standard)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (physical takings analysis)