Challenges to Massachusetts’ “Assault Weapons” Prohibitions
So-called “assault weapons” have been regulated in the United States for decades. Massachusetts’ ban, enacted in 1998, faces renewed legal challenges today.
FACING OFF AGAINST THE BAN
Massachusetts’ law classifies the firearms as “assault-style” firearms. Former Republican Governor Mitt Romney signed the law in 1998, which was modeled after the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Since enactment, there have been attempts to overturn the law in the Bay State. Currently, there are two challenges underway: the National Association for Gun Rights filed a complaint in 2022 and the National Rifle Association and other plaintiffs filed their own suit in 2025.
COMMONLY OWNED
Assault weapon bans prohibit the ownership of widely used semi-automatic rifles, such as AR-15s and other modern sporting rifles. Proponents of the laws often cite high-profile shootings as justification. However, critics note that handguns—not rifles—are the most common weapons in mass shootings and general homicides.
How prevalent are these rifles in America? A 2022 Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that AR-15’s are owned by 20 percent of gun owners. The primary reason for ownership: self-defense. Under District of Columbia v. Heller, arms in common use for self-defense cannot be banned.
Federal Judge Roger T. Benitez famously highlighted this point in 2021, noting that AR-15-style firearms are as common as the F-150 pickup truck. “Modern rifles are popular. Modern rifles are legal to build, buy, and own under federal law and the laws of 45 states. There are probably more modern rifles in circulation than there are Ford F-150 pickup trucks,” Benitez wrote in a 2021 opinion in the Southern District of California.
HISTORY
Assault weapon bans date back to 1989, beginning with California. New Jersey followed in 1990, and Connecticut in 1993. Massachusetts’ law followed the federal 1994 ban, which President Bill Clinton signed. The federal law expired after 10 years under President George W. Bush. Meanwhile, states including Hawaii, Maryland, and New York maintained their own bans. Today, 11 jurisdictions have some form of assault weapon prohibition.
The problem with these dangerous progressive anti-gun policies are that they tend to migrate. If you want to hold onto your AR, semi-automatic firearms, and standard capacity magazines, pay attention to what’s going on in these progressive strongholds.
Assault weapon bans date back to 1989, when California enacted a first-in-the-nation regulation on semi-automatic firearms. New Jersey followed by introducing their ban in 1989 and enacting it in 1990. In 1993, Connecticut also enacted prohibitions on the arms, which the 30th anniversary was “celebrated” by Governor Ned Lamont just two years ago.
NATION-WIDE IMPLICATIONS
The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, signed by President Bill Clinton largely mirrored the California’s earlier restrictions on which firearms should be prohibited. The federal law included a ten-year sunset clause, and when it expired in 2004, President George W. Bush allowed it to lapse without renewal..
Even while the federal ban was still in place, Massachusetts enacted its own version under Governor Romney. Hawaii, Maryland, and New York followed suit, adopting state-level bans on modern sporting rifles despite the ongoing federal restriction.
Today, 11 states and jurisdictions maintain some form of assault weapons prohbition.
Legal challenges to these state-level bans are steadily making their way through the courts, and it is increasingly likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually take up one of these cases. Justice Kavanaugh has already signaled that the Court is open to reviewing how these bans square with the Constitution.
While most gun crime is committed with handguns, and the Heller decision specifically protects handguns ownership, the same clarity has not yet been extended to modern sporting rifles and other semi-automatic firearms. A definitive Supreme Court ruling affirming their protection could finally bring an end to these state-level prohibitions.
CAPEN V. CAMPBELL
The first of the two major challenges is Capen v. Campbell brought by the National Association for Gun Rights. Filed on September 7, 2022 in the District Court of Massachusetts, the complaint argues that “[t]he vast majority of States do not ban the[] type of semiautomatic rifles deemed ‘assault weapons’” and that and that there is a long, established tradition of lawful private ownership of these firearms.
The case moved through the district court, where plaintiffs were unable to secure a preliminary injunction. In April, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s denial of an injunction, stating that NAGR “failed to demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of either of their assault weapons- or LCM-related challenges.”
NAGR Vice President, Hannah Hill, recently discussed the Capen case in a YouTube video, noting, “We filed the case immediately after Bruen. This was before we realized what utter and absolute rebellion the lower courts would be in two and three years down the road. It was also before we realized that the Supreme Court wasn’t going to be engaging with any preliminary injunction cases.”
Hill explained litigation is now back before the district court and moving into the full merits phase. “First we have fact discovery, then we have expert discovery, and then we have final motions for summary judgment, rebuttals to both and then we wait for the judge to rule,” she explained.
HANLON V. CAMPBELL
On August 21, 2025, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners’ Action League, Pioneer Valley Arms, and three named plaintiffs filed Hanlon v. Campbell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Eastern Division).
The case was filed after the Supreme Court declined to hear Snope v. Brown, a challenge to Maryland’s assault weapon ban. What’s stood out in the Snope denial was not the outcome, but rather Justice Kavanaugh’s statement accompanying it.“Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.”
This did not go unnoticed. The NRA cited Kavanaugh’s comments directly in the Hanlon complaint, interpreting his statement as a clear indication that the Court is preparing to take up the legality of the AR-15 and modern-rifle bans.
The complaint also referenced a separate statement from Justice Clarence Thomas: “I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country.”
Hanlon is the newest of all the current federal challenges to assault weapon prohibitions. Its timing gives it a unique advantage: it benefits from several years of post-Bruen litigation, appellate rulings, and the evolving judicial signals from the Supreme Court.
When the case was filed, NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford understored the stakes: “Radical gun grabbers in Massachusetts have run roughshod on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. These extreme and ill-conceived laws have created chaos in the Commonwealth, turning lawful gun owners into felons overnight. Today’s lawsuit filed by the NRA seeks to end arbitrary bans on commonly owned firearms and begin the process of restoring the constitutional rights of Bay Staters.”
A RACE TO THE TOP
The two challenges to Massachusetts’ bans on modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines are part of a growing wave of litigation nationwide. There are several ripe challenges that are working their way through the courts in other jurisdictions. The topic of hardware bans, whether a magazine or specific features of a firearm, will eventually have to be reconciled. In a post-Bruen landscape, frustrations continues to mount as many lower courts failing to apply the law faithfully.
Will either of these Massachusetts cases make it to the Supreme Court? Ideally, no. The hope is that the constitutional questions are resolved long before these cases leave the district court the subject will be put to bed before they make it completely out of district court. And they’ll be there to set the precedent in the Bay State.
The importance of these cases — and similar challenges — cannot be overstated. The California law served as the model for the federal 1994 ban, and historically, restrictive firearm policies have not remained confined to progressive states. Those living in traditionally right-leaning jurisdictions should not assume immunity. Political winds shift quickly, and one or two election cycles could dramatically reshape the future of the right to keep and bear arms.