AR-15s are meant for slaughter, not self defense, so Massachusetts man can't outfit his house with them while his suit over state gun regulations continues, judge rules

A federal judge says the state's ban on certain high-powered assault weapons complies with the Second Amendment and so he's rejected a request for a preliminary injunction that would let one Massachusetts man in particular, but also other gun fans, stock up on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines while a lawsuit over the issue wends its way through the courts.

US District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor's ruling came last month in a suit brought by Joseph Capen, who wants to buy the "the proscribed firearms and magazines for self-defense and other purposes," and the National Association for Gun Rights over the state's ban on the ownership and sale of a specific list of rapid-fire weapons and magazines that can hold more than ten bullets, or five shotgun shells.

The AR-15s on which Capen and the gun group focused are meant for mass killing, not the sort of self defense the Supreme Court says the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to practice, and so while Capen and the gun group can continue to press their case, they cannot act as if they've already won - because, in fact, they will likely lose, Saylor concluded.

"The statute comports with the requirements of the Second Amendment, and therefore plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims," Saylor concluded.

Saylor wrote that recent Supreme Court rulings declaring the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to possess guns for self defense - including a ruling striking down a Massachusetts law banning stun guns - did not overturn the right of states to regulate just what sort of guns could be allowed for self defense. He noted that the decisions specifically state they are not giving Americans an absolute right to buy any sort of firearm but only ones that are "in common use" and not "dangerous and unusual."

Saylor acknowledged that Americans have put AR-15s and similar weapons "in common use" but said that at the same time, they are also "dangerous and unusual." He rejected Capen's argument that semi-automatic weapons have existed since the 1700s, since early models were far from common, and used completely different methods for spitting out more than one shot at a time, and discusses, in great detail, the unique characteristics that make AR-15s weapons of mass murder.

It seems clear - indeed beyond reasonable dispute - that there has been a "dramatic technological change" from a pepperbox-style pistol to a modern AR-15. The features of modern assault weapons - particularly the AR-15's radical increases in muzzle velocity, range, accuracy, and functionality - along with the types of injuries they can inflict are so different from colonial firearms that the two are not reasonably comparable. Even without considering the threats posed by mass shooting events, the Court is satisfied at this stage that defendant has met her burden of showing that there has been a "dramatic technological change" that, in turn, requires reasoning by analogy from the historical record. See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 27-29.

Unlike handguns, assault weapons are uniquely dangerous to law enforcement because their features allow shooters to engage targets from far greater distances, to do so more accurately, and to penetrate body armor. As a result, assault weapons are disproportionately used to kill police officers. ... [T]hey pose a unique danger to the public, among other reasons due to their destructive power. Those concerns - the protection of law enforcement and the public - have animated the states to pass regulations on dangerous weapons throughout the nation's history. ...

[T]here can be little serious question that assault weapons, such as the AR-15, have characteristics that give them capabilities far beyond those of a typical handgun. See Worman, 922 F.3d at 37 (considering that question under the Act and noting that "wielding the proscribed weapons for self-defense within the home is tantamount to using a sledgehammer to crack open the shell of a peanut"). For example, the AR-15 has substantially greater range and muzzle velocity than a 9mm handgun. Assault rifles were developed for modern military combat, not self-defense. Indeed, the AR-15 is functionally identical to its military counterparts, the M16 and its carbine version, the M4, which have the same basic structure, operation, near-equivalent muzzle velocities (3300 feet per second), and rates of effective fire (45 rounds per minute). ...

Of course, the fact that the AR-15 was developed as a military weapon does not alone render it "dangerous and unusual." Rather, it is the fact that the design and features of an AR-15, compared to a typical handgun, makes it an unreasonably dangerous and unusual weapon for ordinary self-defense purposes.

First, the intrinsic characteristics of assault weapons make them poor self-defense weapons. AR-15s are physically unsuited to typical self-defense scenarios. They are significantly heavier and longer than typical handguns, making them less concealable, more difficult to use, and less readily accessible, particularly for an inexperienced user. ... They are not generally useful or appropriate weapons for ordinary citizens to keep at their bedsides, or to carry on city streets as they go about their daily business.

And, he continued, Capen and the gun group are simply wrong in stating that today's weapons of mass death are really just marginally different from 17th-century weapons - which involved multiple shots from multiple barrels, rather than today's fast-firing semi-automatic weapons.

There were, of course, homicides in 1791. No doubt, some portion of those homicides were perpetrated by people using firearms. But there is no evidence that there were any single-event, single-perpetrator mass homicides, much less homicides of that nature on a regular basis. Again, while the Court need not reach the issue of whether such homicides are an “unprecedented societal concern,” the truth of that proposition nonetheless seems obvious. In any event, because defendant [state Attorney General Andrea Campbell] has met her burden of showing that there has been a "dramatic technological change," the Court may reason by analogy to evaluate historical analogues to the Act.

Saylor wrote that the 1998 Massachusetts ban - modeled on a similar, but now expired federal law - comports with the Second Amendment and Supreme Court rulings because it is not an all-out ban on all firearms, but a carefully tailored list of weapons that, like the AR-15, have certain characteristics that make them uniquely "dangerous and unusual."

First, the Act poses a minimal burden on self-defense. It does not prohibit all magazines, only those that can hold more than ten rounds. Again, any semiautomatic weapon using a detachable magazine can accept one that holds ten rounds or fewer. And there is no restriction on the number of magazines that an individual may own or carry.

If there is a reason why an eleven-round magazine, rather than a ten-round magazine, is reasonably necessary for purposes of self-defense, it is not apparent from the record. Ordinary citizens undertaking lawful activities do not typically engage in extended firefights. To the contrary, defendant has provided substantial evidence that, in typical self-defense scenarios, a defender will only fire two or three shots. To the extent that the ten-round limit burdens the use of a semiautomatic firearm at all, it is because a brief pause to reload a new magazine would be required before the next round can be fired. Indeed, plaintiffs have not pointed to a single case where the ability to fire more than ten rounds without reloading has been essential to self-defense.

Plaintiffs again simply fall back on their assertion that magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are “in common use,” and therefore deserve protection. They have not, however, provided any evidence at this stage that a magazine that can hold more than ten rounds is necessary, useful, or even desirable for self-defense purposes. Based on the record, therefore, the burden of the Act on the reasonable requirements of ordinary citizens for self-defense is minimal at best. Second, the prohibition on LCMs [large-capacity magazines] is comparably justified to respond to threats to public safety, particularly mass shootings. In mass shooting events, the average number of shots fired is upward of 99 rounds. Out of 115 such events, where the type of magazine was known, 73 involved the use of an LCM. In the same dataset, there was an average of 25 casualties when an LCM was involved, versus 9 without one. That data supports the government's proffered reasoning that the regulation of LCMs is justified based on their role in these incidents.

Via Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.