DOJ Helps Challenge Massachusetts Gun Ban

The gun laws in Massachusetts are a legal labyrinth that seems designed to impede the right to keep and bear arms at every turn. In addition to banning many popular semi-automatic long guns, the state’s “Approved Firearms Roster” also prohibits the sale of common handguns unless they have (among other things) “safety features” like loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconnects (though makes and models that were offered for sale before the roster came into existence in the late 90s are typically grandfathered in).  

Firearms Policy Coalition and several individual plaintiffs are challenging the Firearms Roster, and the case is pending before the First Circuit Court of Appeals after a district court upheld the roster last August. The district court judge concluded that the regulatory scheme doesn’t implicate the Second Amendment because it does not “meaningfully impair the [Granata Plaintiffs’] ability to access firearms” and the roster doesn’t function as a ban on an entire class of firearms. Even if the Second Amendment was implicated, Judge Denise J. Casper wrote, the regulatory scheme is close enough to “proving” laws in Massachusetts and Maine to withstand a legal challenge. 

FPC and the other plaintiffs in Granata appealed that decision, and oral arguments are set to take place on September 9, 2026. This week the Department of Justice informed the First Circuit that it would like to participate in oral arguments in support of the plaintiffs. 

This appeal concerns the fundamental right of law-abiding citizens to acquire, possess, and carry arms in common use for lawful purposes guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Massachusetts law infringes upon this fundamental right by effectively establishing a pre-clearance regime for the sale of widely owned and commonly used handguns, which prevents or unlawfully restricts law-abiding Massachusetts citizens from purchasing those arms. This regime indirectly achieves what New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 70 (2022)forbids: “prohibit[ing] the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense.” 

The United States has a strong interest in ensuring important questions about the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections are correctly resolved, that the Second Amendment is not treated as a second-class right, and that law-abiding Americans in this Circuit are not deprived of the full opportunity to enjoy the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

… If the Court grants this motion, the Assistant Attorney General for theCivil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, Harmeet K. Dhillon, would present oral argument on behalf of the United States. A motion for leave to file notice of appearance on behalf of the United States pursuant to Local Rule 12.0(a) has been filed contemporaneously with this motion.

I’m somewhat surprised (and pleased) to see that Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon would be the one arguing on behalf of the U.S. government. I have nothing at all against Barry Arrington, who’s the acting head of the Second Amendment Section. In fact, I’m a big fan of his work on behalf of those Americans trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights. I just think that the head of the Civil Rights Division presenting the government’s case underscores the importance of this issue to the division and the DOJ as a whole. 

This request is also a signal that DOJ is paying attention to what’s going on in Massachusetts, and if Dhillon and her colleagues think the firearms roster is impeding the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense, I can’t imagine they think highly of the state’s other restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Many of those restrictions are being challenged at the ballot box this November, but we may see DOJ litigate those laws if the referendum is unsuccessful. 

Massachusetts is a target-rich environment for Second Amendment legal challenges. The problem is that the First Circuit Court of Appeals may be the appellate court that’s most hostile to our Second Amendment rights. The DOJ’s interest in Granata probably won’t sway the appellate panel’s verdict, but it could prove very helpful when this case is inevitably appealed to the Supreme Court. 

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 receive 60% off your membership.