646 F.Supp.3d 368
D.R.I.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (four gun owners and a firearms dealer) challenged Rhode Island's 2022 ban on Large Capacity Feeding Devices (LCMs) — devices capable of holding more than 10 rounds — and sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement.
- The statute prohibited possession after a 180-day grace period (effective Dec. 18, 2022) but allowed owners to (1) permanently modify magazines to ≤10 rounds, (2) sell/transfer to a federally licensed dealer or out-of-state location, or (3) surrender to law enforcement. Possession after the deadline is a felony.
- Plaintiffs asserted: (1) Second Amendment violation; (2) Fifth Amendment taking without just compensation; and (3) Fourteenth Amendment due process/vagueness. The court held an evidentiary record based on submitted expert declarations and briefing; no evidentiary hearing was held.
- The Court denied the preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits: LCMs are not shown to be "Arms" under the Second Amendment text and are not proven to be instruments of self-defense.
- The Court also found no compensable taking (statute is a valid exercise of police power with non-forfeiture compliance options) and that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague; public safety interests in reducing mass-shooting lethality outweighed plaintiffs' asserted harms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LCMs are protected "Arms" under the Second Amendment | LCMs are integral to modern firearms; without magazines many weapons are unusable, so magazines are "Arms." | Magazines are ammunition containers/accessories, not weapons themselves; they fall outside the Amendment's textual protection. | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show LCMs are "Arms." Magazines are accessories/containers and not covered by the Second Amendment text. |
| Whether LCMs are protected as instruments of self-defense (core Second Amendment) | High-capacity magazines aid defensive shooting (e.g., multiple shots needed); common use implies protection. | No credible evidence that civilians need >10 rounds for self-defense; historical and empirical record links LCMs to mass killings rather than private defense. | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show LCMs are weapons of self-defense; no presumptive Second Amendment protection. |
| Whether the LCM Ban effects a Fifth Amendment taking requiring just compensation | Mandatory dispossession (forfeiture or compelled inability to use property) is a physical or regulatory taking. | Statute is valid police power regulation; owners have alternatives (modify, sell, transport, surrender); regulation is not a compensable taking. | Court: No taking. Regulation is a valid exercise of police power; Loretto physical-taking rule inapplicable where non-forfeiture options exist. |
| Whether the statute is vague / violates Due Process and whether plaintiffs face irreparable harm warranting preliminary relief | "Permanent modification" is undefined; owners risk unknowable compliance and potential criminality; irreparable constitutional harm from deprivation. | Statutory language is sufficiently clear ("cannot hold more than ten rounds"), enforcement is not arbitrary, and alleged harms are primarily economic or speculative. | Court: Statute is not unconstitutionally vague; plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm—economic injuries are compensable and self-defense harms speculative. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home; not unlimited).
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (Second Amendment analysis requires textual reading and historical tradition; rejects two-step means-end scrutiny).
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the states via Fourteenth Amendment).
- Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (upheld magazine/assault-weapon restrictions; addressed lethality and public-safety considerations).
- Worman v. Healey, 922 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2019) (upheld LCM/assault-weapon ban under pre-Bruen analysis; assumed protections but applied intermediate scrutiny).
- Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (panel and en banc proceedings addressed magazine bans; court treated ban as limiting magazines rather than banning weapons).
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (permanent physical occupation is a taking; narrow rule for concrete invasions).
- Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017) (distinguishes physical takings from regulatory takings and analyses of property burdens).
- Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962) (valid police-power regulation that deprives property of beneficial use is not necessarily a compensable taking).
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (factors for regulatory takings analysis).
- Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (post-remand discussion recognizing the lethality of high-capacity magazines and public-safety rationales).