Capen v. Campbell: First Circuit Upholds Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban

Current status: The First Circuit's April 2025 ruling addressed only a preliminary injunction, not a final merits judgment. The district-court proceedings, including the consolidated Hanlon challenge, were stayed on July 9, 2026, at the parties' joint request while the Supreme Court considers related assault-weapons cases. The July 10 status conference was canceled.^[9]

In April 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its decision in Capen v. Campbell, 134 F.4th 660 (1st Cir. 2025), affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction against the Massachusetts assault weapons ban in a Second Amendment challenge brought in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen^[1]. The merits remain unresolved, and the consolidated district-court proceeding is currently stayed.

Background

Following the Bruen decision, which established a new framework for evaluating firearms regulations under the Second Amendment, plaintiffs challenged the Massachusetts assault weapons ban (now restructured into Sections 128^[2] and 131M^[3]) and the Attorney General's 2016 enforcement notice. They argued that the ban could not survive scrutiny under the historical tradition test articulated in Bruen.

The Court's Analysis

The First Circuit applied the Bruen framework and examined the historical tradition of firearms regulation in the United States. The court found that there is a longstanding tradition of regulating particularly dangerous weapons, dating back to colonial-era restrictions on the storage and use of gunpowder and certain weapons in populated areas.

District Court Status

After remand, Hanlon v. Campbell was consolidated into the lead Capen docket on October 17, 2025. On July 9, 2026, the district court granted the parties' joint request to stay the consolidated proceeding pending the Supreme Court's disposition of Grant v. Higgins and Viramontes v. Cook County. The court canceled the status conference set for July 10 and directed counsel to notify the clerk when they are ready to proceed.

Docket No. 25-566 is Grant v. Higgins, a Connecticut assault weapons ban case, not a Capen docket. The Supreme Court has separately signaled interest in the broader assault weapons issue. In June 2025, the Court declined to hear two related challenges, Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, but Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately to suggest that the Court "should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two," and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented from the denial. A future cert petition in Capen or a related case remains possible once merits proceedings conclude.^[5] On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566), consolidated with Viramontes v. Cook County, agreeing to decide the constitutionality of assault weapons bans in its 2026 Term, with argument expected in the fall. Capen itself is still not before the Court, but the ruling in those cases is likely to control the fate of the Massachusetts ban.

Other Pending Cases

Several other cases challenging Massachusetts firearms laws are pending in federal and state courts:

• Hanlon v. Campbell (D. Mass., filed August 21, 2025): NRA-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the assault-style firearms ban under the Second Amendment and raising a Fifth Amendment vagueness challenge. Massachusetts has asserted sovereign immunity.
• Granata v. Campbell: Challenging the EOPSS Approved Firearms Roster as unconstitutional
• Escher v. Noble (D. Mass., filed February 2025): Coalition lawsuit by SAF, NRA, GOAL, Commonwealth Second Amendment, FPC, and GOA challenging the 18-to-20-year-old handgun and semiautomatic ban under Chapter 135.
• Donnell/Marquis (Non-Resident Licensing): RESOLVED. The SJC ruled March 11, 2025, holding that the pre-Bruen "may issue" non-resident licensing scheme was unconstitutional as applied (Donnell), but that the post-Chapter 135 "shall issue" framework is constitutional (Marquis, SJC-13562). SCOTUS declined certiorari January 2026 (Docket No. 25-5280).

No Pending Cert Petition

There is no Supreme Court cert petition in Capen. Docket No. 25-566 is Grant v. Higgins, a Connecticut assault weapons ban case, not Capen. Capen returned to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for merits proceedings, and no cert petition has been filed.

Implications

This ruling means the Massachusetts assault weapons ban remains in full effect. Firearms classified as assault-style firearms under state law continue to be prohibited from sale, transfer, or new possession. Assault-style firearms lawfully possessed in Massachusetts on August 1, 2024 may continue to be possessed under Section 131M(b), but only by an owner holding a license to carry (or dealer's license) and only if the firearm is registered in accordance with Section 121B and serialized in accordance with Section 121C. Large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 remain lawful under Section 131M(c) only in specified settings (the owner's property, permitted private property, a dealer or gunsmith for repair, licensed ranges, and travel between them with the device unloaded and locked).

Later Appellate Context

In Recchia v. Campbell, the First Circuit later affirmed dismissal of a facial challenge under circuit precedent, but it treated the magazine argument as unpreserved and undeveloped and did not decide unraised arguments.^[11] The en banc Third Circuit reached a contrary result concerning New Jersey restrictions in 2026.^[12] The Third Circuit decision is not binding in Massachusetts.