US appeals court upholds Massachusetts assault weapons ban

By Nate Raymond

April 18 (Reuters) - A Massachusetts law banning assault weapons is not unconstitutional as a bar against owning and selling dangerous semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 used in mass shootings is consistent with the nation's history of firearms regulation, a U.S. appeals court ruled.

The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday rejected arguments by the advocacy group the National Association for Gun Rights that the state's law infringed citizens' rights to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment.

Massachusetts' law, which was signed into law in 1998 by Republican former Governor Mitt Romney, was modeled after a now-expired federal assault weapons ban and prohibits owning or selling certain semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Lawyers for the gun rights group and a would-be assault weapons purchaser argued that the state's ban could not stand after the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court changed the landscape of firearms regulation in its landmark 2022 decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

That ruling established a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

But Judge Gary Katzmann, a visiting judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade writing for a three-judge 1st Circuit panel, said a lower-court judge correctly held the law passed muster under the 2nd Amendment.

He said that conclusion was driven in large part by a decision by the 1st Circuit last year upholding a Rhode Island ban on large-capacity magazines, which the court had similarly concluded was consistent with historical tradition.

Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell's office pointed to 18th and 19th Century bans on gun powder, trap guns and long-bladed "Bowie" knives as examples of weapons being banned because they posed a unique danger to public safety.

"This analogy does not break down at the level of how that threat -- mass killing -- is mechanically effectuated," wrote Katzmann, who like the other judges on the panel was appointed by a Democratic president.

Hannah Hill, the National Association for Gun Rights' executive director, in a post on X said the decision was "full of absolute defiance of Bruen."

She noted the Supreme Court was considering whether to take up a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban, which the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in August. It is also considering whether to review the Rhode Island decision.

Campbell's office had no immediate comment.

The case is Capen v. Campbell, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-1061.

For the plaintiffs: Barry Arrington of Arrington Law Firm

For the state: Grace Gohlke of the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General

Read more:

Appeals court signals it will uphold Massachusetts assault weapons ban

US Supreme Court turns away gun law challenges in Delaware, Maryland

US appeals court upholds Maryland's assault weapons ban