Capen v. Campbell: First Circuit Affirms Denial of Injunction Against 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, on the parties' joint motion. 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 in Section 131M^[3]) and its large capacity magazine provisions. 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 held that whatever burden the Massachusetts ban might impose on self-defense rests on the same justification as has underpinned a tradition of weapon regulation throughout American history. The historical regulations the Commonwealth cited included eighteenth- and nineteenth-century bans on gunpowder, bans on trap guns and Bowie knives, and twentieth-century bans on sawed-off shotguns and machine guns.

District Court Status

After remand, Hanlon v. Campbell was consolidated into the lead Capen docket on October 20, 2025. On July 9, 2026, the district court granted the parties' joint motion to stay the consolidated proceeding. The Supreme Court set Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238) and Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566), which it consolidated, for oral argument on Wednesday, December 2, 2026.^[13] The district court canceled the status conference set for July 10 and directed counsel to notify the clerk when ready for the next status conference.

Docket No. 25-566 is Grant v. Higgins, a Connecticut assault weapons ban case, not a Capen docket. 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 Justice Thomas dissented from the denial in Snope. Justices Alito and Gorsuch would have granted review in Snope, and all three would have granted review in Ocean State Tactical. On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566), consolidated with Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238), limited to the question presented in No. 25-238, whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Court set the consolidated cases for argument on Wednesday, December 2, 2026.^[5] Capen itself is not before the Court.

Other Pending Cases

Other cases have challenged Massachusetts firearms laws 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 and Fourteenth Amendments and raising a vagueness challenge under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants' answer asserts the Commonwealth's sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity as an affirmative defense.
• Granata v. Campbell: Challenging the EOPSS Approved Firearms Roster as unconstitutional
• Escher v. Noble (D. Mass., filed February 2025): Challenge to the age 21 minimum for a License to Carry, which 18 to 20 year olds need for handguns and semiautomatic long guns. On August 21, 2026 the court held the age requirement constitutional as applied to Escher and the eighteen to twenty year old members of the organizational plaintiffs and granted summary judgment to the defendants^[14]. Judgment entered on August 24, 2026. The plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the judgment on September 21, 2026^[15].
• Donnell/Marquis (Non-Resident Licensing): RESOLVED. The SJC decided both cases on March 11, 2025. In Donnell, it held that the Commonwealth's prior "may issue" non-resident licensing scheme violated the Second Amendment under Bruen and affirmed dismissal of the charge. In Marquis (SJC-13562), it held that the defendant lacked standing to bring an as-applied challenge to the Commonwealth’s non-resident licensing scheme and that the current scheme is facially consistent with the Second Amendment. SCOTUS denied certiorari in Marquis on January 12, 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. Subject to the exceptions in Section 131M, 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) on private property owned or legally controlled by the possessor, on other private property not open to the public with the express permission of the owner or authorized agent, at a licensed dealer or gunsmith for lawful repair, at a licensed firing range or sports shooting competition venue, or while traveling to and from those locations, provided the device is stored unloaded and secured in a locked container in accordance with Sections 131C and 131L.

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] On July 17, 2026, the en banc Third Circuit held that New Jersey's assault firearm provisions are unconstitutional with respect to the full class of semi-automatic rifles and that its large capacity magazine provisions violate the Second Amendment.^[12] The Third Circuit decision is not binding in Massachusetts.