Recchia v. Campbell, 25-1817

Massachusetts has banned the sale, transfer, or possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons since 1998 and expanded the ban in 2024 to cover "assault-style firearms." 1
After the 2024 amendments, Recchia and Mass Armament sued under § 1983, claiming the Act was facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, dormant Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. 2
The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), relying in part on Capen v. Campbell to reject the Second Amendment claim and finding the commerce and equal-protection claims inadequately pleaded. 3
The Act prohibits possession, sale, transfer, and importation of assault-style firearms, with exceptions for lawfully possessed firearms owned and registered in Massachusetts as of August 1, 2024. 4
Recchia is the sole owner of a Massachusetts gun store that sells mostly firearms and accessories sourced from out-of-state entities. 5
On appeal, Recchia focused on the AR-15 and other assault-style firearms, while some broader theories and magazine-related arguments were waived or undeveloped. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Second Amendment facial challenge 7	Capen does not control; the Act bars arms equivalent to military weapons and needed for tyranny resistance.	Capen forecloses the challenge; the Act fits historical firearm regulation.	Dismissal affirmed; Capen controls and defeats the claim. 8
Second Amendment military-arms theory 9	The Second Amendment protects arms comparable to modern military rifles like the AR-15.	Heller rejected any right to military-equivalent weapons.	Rejected; Heller forecloses the theory. 10
Dormant Commerce Clause 11	The Act discriminates against interstate commerce and substantially burdens it.	The Act regulates only in-state sales and does not target out-of-state interests.	Dismissal affirmed; no cognizable discrimination or substantial burden pleaded. 12
Equal Protection 13	The Act treats Massachusetts dealers differently from out-of-state sellers and burdens his livelihood.	No suspect class or fundamental right is involved, so rational basis applies.	Dismissal affirmed; rational basis review is satisfied and claim fails. 14

Capen v. Campbell, 134 F.4th 660 (1st Cir. 2025) (upheld an earlier Massachusetts assault-weapon law under the Second Amendment 15)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (rejected a right to possess military-equivalent weapons 16)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2022) (requires consistency with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation 17)
Walgreen Co. v. Rullan, 405 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005) (describes the dormant Commerce Clause as the Constitution's negative aspect limiting state regulation 18)
Pike v. Bruce Church, 397 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1970) (balances nondiscriminatory state burdens against local benefits 19)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (states the basic equal-protection principle of treating similarly situated persons similarly 20)