State v. Max Misch, 256 A.3d 519

Defendant (Max Misch) was charged under 13 V.S.A. § 4021 for possessing two 30‑round rifle magazines he bought in New Hampshire and brought into Vermont.
§ 4021 bans manufacture/possession/transfer/import of "large‑capacity ammunition feeding devices" (>10 rounds for long guns; >15 for handguns), with a grandfather clause for pre‑April 11, 2018 possession and various law‑enforcement/government exemptions.
Defendant moved to dismiss arguing the ban violates Chapter I, Article 16 (right to bear arms) and that the grandfather/exemptions violate the Common Benefits Clause (Article 7).
The trial court denied dismissal; the parties appealed on report by agreement raising Article 16 and Article 7 issues; this Court reviewed de novo.
The Vermont Supreme Court held Article 16 protects a limited individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense but that the right is subject to reasonable regulation; applying a reasonable‑regulation test, the Court upheld § 4021 as a permissible exercise of the State’s police power.
The Court declined to decide Article 7 challenges: the grandfather clause issue was waived on appeal and the government‑exemptions argument was not preserved for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of Article 16 and applicable test	Article 16 protects a limited individual right to bear arms for self‑defense; adopt state "reasonable‑regulation" test	Article 16 is an express, unlimited individual right; restrictions presumed unconstitutional	Article 16 protects a limited individual self‑defense right and is subject to reasonable regulation; adopt reasonable‑regulation balancing test
Constitutionality of § 4021 under Article 16	§ 4021 is a reasonable police‑power regulation aimed at reducing mass‑shooting lethality and leaves ample means for self‑defense	§ 4021 unconstitutionally infringes Article 16 right to bear arms	§ 4021 upheld: Legislature had a valid purpose supported by evidence; the ban imposes only a minimal burden and does not nullify Article 16
Common Benefits Clause (Article 7) challenges	State: grandfather clause and exemptions were not successfully attacked below / some challenges waived	Defendant: grandfather clause and law‑enforcement/government exemptions violate Article 7	Court did not reach merits: grandfather‑clause claim waived on appeal; government‑exemptions claim not preserved for review

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized Second Amendment protection for individual possession of firearms for self‑defense)
Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (federal circuit post‑Heller analysis of permissible regulations)
Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (upheld assault/LCM restrictions; weapons principally useful in military service fall outside core protection)
N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) (applied two‑step framework and intermediate scrutiny to uphold restrictions)
Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General N.J., 910 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 2018) (upheld large‑capacity‑magazine restriction)
Worman v. Healey, 922 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2019) (upheld Massachusetts restrictions on LCMs)
Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015) (upheld assault‑weapon and LCM regulations where adequate means of self‑defense remain)
Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2020) (Ninth Circuit invalidated California’s LCM ban under federal Second Amendment)
State v. Duranleau, 128 Vt. 206, 260 A.2d 383 (1969) (Vt. precedent recognizing that Article 16 is subject to reasonable legislative regulation)
State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 55 A. 610 (1903) (Vt. decision relying on Article 16 to limit municipal power to restrict carrying firearms)