A federal appeals court upheld Massachusetts’ ban on AR-15-style rifles, ruling it doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. The decision directly challenges the logic behind a major 2022 Supreme Court ruling—and could set up another clash at the nation’s highest court.
Key Facts:
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled on Thursday that Massachusetts’ assault weapons ban is constitutional.
- The case was brought by Joseph Capen, who said he wanted to buy AR-15-style firearms for self-defense.
- Judge Gary Katzmann wrote the opinion for the three-judge panel, citing historical firearm regulation as justification.
- The court found that AR-15-style weapons are not commonly used in self-defense and may be regulated due to their public safety risks.
- Gun rights groups argue the ruling contradicts the Supreme Court’s 2022 *Bruen* decision, which tightened Second Amendment scrutiny.
The Rest of The Story:
Massachusetts law prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of so-called assault weapons, including AR-15 rifles.
Plaintiff Joseph Capen challenged the law, claiming it infringed on his right to bear arms for self-defense.
The First Circuit Court rejected his claim, saying that such firearms have not been shown to be used in personal defense and that laws regulating dangerous weapons have a long-standing place in American legal tradition.
The court referenced both the Bruen and Heller decisions from the Supreme Court, arguing that current restrictions fit within the scope of permissible regulation.
Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell praised the decision as a win for public safety.
Gun rights advocates, however, are calling foul, saying the ruling contradicts the legal framework set out by the Supreme Court in Bruen.
DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR GUNS. Gun confiscation is the turning point of a free society. Once a government disarms a population, every other freedom becomes simply a courtesy or allowance of the government. Put differently, gun ownership is the liberty upon which all others rest. Do… pic.twitter.com/fcdbDg3pDY
— Trump Girl (@TrumpGirlLove) April 3, 2025
Commentary:
This ruling is a clear break from the intent of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, which emphasized historical consistency and individual rights.
By upholding a broad ban on a commonly owned firearm like the AR-15, the First Circuit appears to sidestep the core logic that Bruen established.
Rather than analyzing whether this firearm is in “common use” for lawful purposes—particularly self-defense—the court focused instead on subjective ideas of danger and public safety.
This approach shifts the balance away from individual rights and towards government discretion.
The Constitution doesn’t allow states to infringe upon rights simply because a weapon type is unpopular in political circles.
That’s precisely the kind of majoritarian logic the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent.
If this case reaches the Supreme Court, the justices should restore clarity.
Bruen wasn’t vague.
It created a clear test based on historical tradition and individual use.
This ruling ignores that framework in favor of subjective public policy arguments.
The Bottom Line:
The First Circuit’s decision upholding Massachusetts’ assault weapons ban opens the door to more aggressive firearm restrictions across blue states.
It defies the spirit of the Bruen decision and raises serious constitutional questions.
Supporters of the Second Amendment hope the Supreme Court will step in and reverse course.
Read Next
– Tulsi Gabbard Criminally Refers Two Intel Officials to DOJ for Prosecution Over Leaks
– Trump’s $20B Election Interference Lawsuit Claims Its First Casualty at CBS
– Top Senate Democrat Retires, Setting Off Bitter Primary Battle
– Tesla Vandal Working for Walz Walks Free After Causing $20K in Damage
– Chuck Schumer Just Got The Worst News of His Political Career