293 F. Supp. 3d 251
D.D.C.2018Background
- Massachusetts law (1998 Act) bans specified "assault weapons" (including AR-15s and analogs) and large-capacity magazines (LCMs); it follows the federal 1994 assault-weapons statute language and exempts weapons lawfully possessed on Sept. 13, 1994.
- Plaintiffs (firearm owners, prospective owners, dealers, and an advocacy group) sued state officials claiming (1) the Act violates the Second Amendment, (2) the Attorney General's July 20, 2016 Enforcement Notice retroactively and unforeseeably expands criminal liability in violation of due process, and (3) the term "copies or duplicates" in the Act is unconstitutionally vague.
- The Attorney General's Enforcement Notice explained how to identify "copies or duplicates," stated it would not be applied retroactively to individuals, and offered limited guidance to dealers.
- The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment and raised ripeness sua sponte for the retroactivity/due-process claim.
- Court dismissed Count Two (retroactivity/due process) for lack of ripeness because the Notice is nonbinding guidance, the Attorney General disavowed retroactive enforcement as to individuals, and there is no credible, immediate threat of prosecution for past transactions.
- On the merits, the court held that AR-15–type rifles and LCMs are "weapons that are most useful in military service" and therefore fall outside the Second Amendment's protection; it also rejected the facial vagueness challenge to "copies or duplicates." Summary judgment granted to defendants on Counts One and Three; Plaintiffs' cross-motions denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ripeness of retroactivity/due-process claim (Count Two) | Enforcement Notice retroactively criminalizes past transfers of Massachusetts-compliant firearms and therefore creates immediate due-process injury | Notice is nonbinding guidance, Attorney General disavowed retroactive enforcement as to individuals, and there is no credible threat of prosecution | Not ripe; Count Two dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| 2. Second Amendment challenge to ban on assault weapons and LCMs (Count One) | AR-15 and LCM bans infringe individual right to keep and bear arms, especially in the home; AR-15 is overwhelmingly chosen for lawful purposes | AR-15–type rifles and LCMs are like M16s—most useful in military service—and thus outside Second Amendment protection per Heller | Defendants entitled to summary judgment; AR-15s and LCMs fall outside the Second Amendment |
| 3. Vagueness of "copies or duplicates" (Count Three) | Phrase lacks definition and the Enforcement Notice's tests are unclear, chilling lawful conduct and enabling arbitrary enforcement | Phrase has ordinary meaning; statute lists models and adopts a features-based test; Attorney General's guidance further clarifies scope | Phrase is not impermissibly vague on its face; defendants entitled to summary judgment |
| 4. Proper standard for judicial review of Second Amendment claims | (Plaintiffs assumed heightened scrutiny because bans cover commonly owned arms) | (Defendants relied on Heller's original-meaning inquiry and exclusion for weapons "most useful in military service") | Court applied Heller framework: determined arms are outside amendment's scope; did not apply strict/ intermediate scrutiny because weapons fall beyond protected class |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Sup. Ct.) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home; but right is not unlimited)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (Sup. Ct.) (Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (AR-15–type rifles are like M16s and fall outside Second Amendment protection)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (Sup. Ct.) (vagueness doctrine: high threshold to void statute; law must give fair notice and not authorize arbitrary enforcement)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (Sup. Ct.) (facial challenges and the standard for invalidating statutes in all applications)