Worman v. Healey
922 F.3d 26
1st Cir.2019Background
- Massachusetts enacted a law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, §§ 121, 131M) banning the sale, transfer, and possession of certain enumerated semiautomatic "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines (LCMs), modeled on the 1994 federal ban; Massachusetts made its ban permanent in 2004.
- Plaintiffs (firearm owners, prospective owners, dealers, and an advocacy group) sued state officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the Act violates the Second Amendment; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed.
- Plaintiffs contend they have a right to keep the proscribed arms and magazines in the home for self-defense; defendants defend the law as a public-safety measure substantially related to preventing mass shootings and crime.
- The First Circuit assumed, without deciding, that the proscribed weapons and magazines receive at least some Second Amendment protection and that the law implicates the core right of self-defense in the home.
- The court held that the Act imposes at most a minimal/modest burden on the core Second Amendment right and applied intermediate scrutiny, concluding the Act is substantially related to important government interests (public safety, crime prevention) and therefore is constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether possession of the proscribed semiautomatic weapons and LCMs in the home is protected by the Second Amendment | Plaintiffs: These arms and magazines are commonly owned and commonly used for self-defense, so they fall within Second Amendment protection | Defendants: Even if some protection exists, these weapons present unique dangers (mass-shooting lethality) and can be regulated to protect public safety | Court: Assumed, without deciding, some Second Amendment protection but did not resolve historical scope question |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny when a law implicates core home self-defense | Plaintiffs: Law implicates core right; a substantial burden requires strict scrutiny | Defendants: Burden on the core is not severe; intermediate scrutiny is appropriate | Court: Intermediate scrutiny applies where law either does not reach the core or places only a modest burden on it |
| Whether the Act survives intermediate scrutiny (fit between law and government interest) | Plaintiffs: Ban sweeps too broadly and disallows lawful self-defense tools for responsible citizens | Defendants: Legislature reasonably concluded the ban targets weapons and magazines tied to mass-casualty harm, advancing public safety | Court: The Act is substantially related to important government interests and survives intermediate scrutiny |
| Whether the Act is a categorical per se ban on commonly kept arms and thus per se unconstitutional | Plaintiffs: Any categorical ban on a commonly kept class of arms is per se unconstitutional | Defendants: The Act targets a specific set of weapons and magazines and leaves other arms lawful (e.g., handguns) | Court: Rejected the "categorical ban" framing; the Act is limited and not per se unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home; right is not unlimited)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (Second Amendment protection tied to weapons having a reasonable relationship to militia use)
- Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) (Second Amendment extends to modern weapons not in existence at the founding)
- Gould v. Morgan, 907 F.3d 659 (1st Cir. 2018) (two-step framework: whether conduct is protected, then applicable level of scrutiny)
- Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (applied intermediate scrutiny to ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines)
- N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) (applied intermediate scrutiny to firearms regulation that did not severely burden core right)
- Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (applied intermediate scrutiny to certain firearms regulations)