Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K.. Dhillon, who’s also the unofficial Second Amendment czar of the Trump administration as far as I’m concerned, is once again charging into the legal fray over a state-level gun control law. Dhillon and the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division have filed an amicus brief in Granata v. Thomas; a challenge to Massachusetts’ “Approved Firearms Roster.”
For the moment, and at the time Granata was filed, the roster covered handguns approved for sale in the state. Under Chapter 135, though, the roster is supposed to include state-approved long guns as well.
The roster is a gun ban, plain and simple. It places commonly owned arms beyond the reach of lawful gun owners in Massachusetts, including Glock handguns. In order to be approved for sale by FFLs, handguns must have particular features like a loaded chamber indicator, which Dhillon and her team (as well as the plaintiffs) argue is a violation of the Second Amendment.
Although the Commonwealth characterizes its regime as a set of safety regulations, the effect of the law is to bar ordinary citizens from acquiring widely owned and commonly used arms. Under Supreme Court precedent, a State may not accomplish indirectly what it is forbidden to do directly: prohibit arms that fall within the Second Amendment’s core protection.
Despite this, the lower court upheld the law. The trial court acknowledged that Bruen controls these regulations,but reasoned that the registry did not outright ban arms because it only set certain safety standards for them. The Court also held that the law did not truly preempt access to arms in common use because the plaintiffs could still purchase them outside the State. In so doing, the district court adopted precisely the approach the Supreme Court warned against in Bruen, subjecting a fundamental right to a preclearance regime that would fail comparable constitutional analysis.
The constitutional problem presented here does not require the Court to resolve every question surrounding firearm regulation, commercial licensing, or historical analogues. Nor does it require the Court to decide whether States may impose neutral conditions on the sale of firearms in general. This amicus brief addresses a narrower and more fundamental point. Whatever regulatory authority States possess, that authority does not extend to prohibiting the sale of arms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. When a law operates to forbid the sale of those arms, it crosses a constitutional line the Second Amendment does not permit. Because Massachusetts law prohibits the sale of arms that are in common use, it conflicts with the Second Amendment’s text as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The judgment below should therefore be reversed.
As Dhillon notes, the district court held that, because Massachusetts’ Approved Firearms Roster doesn’t ban all handguns, it doesn’t violate the right to keep and bear arms. If that’s the standard, though, then Massachusetts could theoretically have an AFR with just one gun approved for sale.
That would be utterly absurd and clearly an infringement on a fundamental right. As for the court’s assertion that the plaintiffs could still purchase other handguns outside of the state, under federal law they’d have to ship them back to an FFL in Massachusetts, and it’s unclear to me whether the FFL could transfer those firearms if they’re not on the roster. Assuming that a gun dealer could do that, it still imposes a needless burden on the exercise of a fundamental civil right.
This is another great brief from Dhillon and her team, and it’s nice to see the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division continuing to take a very active role in challenging state-level gun laws; whether an amicus brief like this one or taking the lead on litigation, as we’ve seen in lawsuits against entities like the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
