Massachusetts has so-called “approved firearms rosters.” These rosters are mother-may-I lists that firearm manufacturers have to get themselves on via independent testing. There are three laboratories, at the time of publication, that are approved to do these tests. One of the three doesn’t have a functioning webpage at this time. Firearms Policy Coalition launched a crusade against the Commonwealth’s restriction on firearm sales, dating back to 2021. On January 6, 2025 the Coalition filed for a summary judgment in their case Granata v. Campbell.

This is not FPC’s first bite at the apple in the District Court of Massachusetts. This case had previously made its way all the way up to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, only to be remanded back down post-Bruen.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the district court’s judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings,” the order stated. “In remanding this matter, we take no position on the outcome previously reached by the district court, and we do not retain jurisdiction. Rather, in the event that any party contests the district court’s decision, a timely new notice of appeal should be filed. No costs are awarded.”

January 6th’s filing cuts at the heart of the matter.

“Massachusetts has closed its borders to large portions of the modern handgun market, banning as ‘unsafe’ many of the firearms that are most trusted by the American people across the country, substituting its judgment for theirs. That it cannot do. As Heller explained clearly, it is the choices of ‘the American people’ that matter in deciding what is, and what is not, ‘in common use’ and therefore protected,” argues the motion.

The current roster has 1,164 individual makes and models on it. While that might seem like a lot of pistols, it’s not when the new firearm that you want is not approved. As noted earlier, testing is done through one of three approved facilities.

“The approved independent testing laboratory shall, at the expense of the entity seeking to have the firearm placed on the Approved Firearms Roster, test the firearm in accordance with the testing requirements and submit a copy of the final test report directly to the Secretary and to the GCAB,” states 501 CMR, § 7.04, the law regulating the placement of firearms on the roster.

The complaint fires back at any argument that the Commonwealth might make rebuking that such a roster is unconstitutional:

While the Commonwealth is sure to argue that it has not banned all handguns, and so its restrictions should not be deemed to burden the Second Amendment right, “[t]he Amendment does not parse between types, makes and models of arms.” Renna v. Bonta, 667 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1061 (S.D. Cal. 2023). As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[i]t is no answer to say … that it is permissible to ban the possession of [some firearms] so long as the possession of other firearms” is allowed. Heller, 554 U.S. at 629. And even if the subset of handguns banned by Massachusetts is examined on its own, it still easily clears any “common use” threshold, because Massachusetts bans some of the most popular handguns in the country, like the Glock 19.

“The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not exempt from the United States Constitution and it cannot ban the sale of common handguns, full stop,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We look forward to eliminating this ban and continuing our progress and work restoring the right to keep and bear arms in Massachusetts and throughout the country.”

The District Court is going to have a hard time wrestling itself into a negative outcome for the plaintiffs. However, they may. But ultimately how they’re going to rule is not known. Regardless, this case is probably going to move on back up to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The question that’s lingering is will it stall, or worse yet, head on back down once there’s more movement with similar cases in the U.S. Supreme Court? Updates on this case will be provided when they come to fruition.