Back in August, the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners Action League filed a lawsuit challenging the new “Assault Style Firearms” law adopted as part of the broader gun control package known as Chapter 135. Though the state has banned so-called assault weapons for several decades now, the new law offers a new opportunity to challenge the ban of commonly-owned arms.
Now the state of Masschusetts has responded to the complaint filed in Hanlon v. Campbell, and as GOAL reports, the state is making the audacious argument that its gun laws are essentially immune to challenge in federal court.
The Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity bar Plaintiffs from seeking or obtaining relief against the Commonwealth and, in particular, bar a declaration or enforcement of state law against the defendant officials.”
Using the Eleventh Amendment defense is unfortunately a common defense used by states wanting to defy the Constitution. In this case the Commonwealth is grasping at straws as a 1908 U.S Supreme Court decision, Ex Parte Young, allows individuals to sue a state official in federal court to end a “continuing violation of federal law,” especially when the Constitution is in play.
Regardless of how common this defense is, this statement makes it clear that Attorney General Campbell is putting the Federal Courts on notice that they essentially have no jurisdiction over Massachusetts law and that the United States Constitution is no longer the law governing civil rights for Massachusetts citizens. This sheds light on why all three branches of Massachusetts government are vehemently strong arming the Second Amendment Community in defiance of NYSRPA v. Bruen.
The Eleventh Amendment states “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
As GOAL says, this is nothing more than grasping at straws. Even if the state of Massachusetts were to argue that the NRA, which is incorporated in New York State and headquartered in Virginia, lacks the ability to challenge the gun ban in question, there are plenty of NRA members who reside in Massachusetts and who do have standing; not to mention the Massachusetts-based Gun Owners Action League and the individual plaintiffs who also live in Massachusetts.
Now, this isn’t the only defense raised by Massachusetts in its reply. Attorney General Andrea Campbell also claims the plaintiffs failed to “state a claim for violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,” which is utterly absurd. The complaint lays out why the gun ban is a violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. That’s the entire point of the complaint!
Next, Campbell argues the plaintiffs “have not alleged injury-in-fact and so lack standing to prosecute this case”, which is also directly contradicted by the complaint itself.
The final affirmative defense offered by the state is that the plaintiffs’ claims “are not ripe” and therefore the federal court lacks jurisdiction. That might be the strongest argument raised by Massachusetts, since implementation of the new “assault weapons” ban has been delayed (along with other challenged aspects of Chapter 135), but as the plaintiffs specifically argued in their complaint:
In addition to banning the enumerated categories, features, and copies or duplicates of “assault-style” firearms, the Act also bans “[a]ny firearm[s] listed on the assault-style firearm roster.” The Act orders the Secretary of the EOPSS, with the advice of the Firearm Control Advisory Board, to “compile and publish a roster of assault-style firearms banned under section 131M.”
The Act further requires the EOPSS to “review, update, and publish” the assault-style firearms roster online at least three times per year, and that copies be sent separately to all FDL holders. State firearms licensing authorities are required to “provide information” on the assault-style firearms roster to all FID and LTC holders upon issuance or renewal of their firearms license.
The Secretary of the EOPSS has discretion to amend the assault-style firearms roster upon their own initiative. As of the filing of this Complaint, the Secretary of the EOPSS has not published the assault-style firearms roster, nor have they announced when such roster may be published or which firearms it will include.
But because the Act confers discretionary authority upon the Secretary of the EOPSS to amend the Approved Firearms Roster “upon their own initiative,” FDLs, including Pioneer Valley Arms, have no way of knowing whether a firearm will be approved for sale or how long it will stay approved. The assault-style firearms roster may be published, updated, or amended at any time and may immediately prohibit firearms purchasers and retailers from acquiring, purchasing, inventorying, selling, leasing, loaning, or otherwise transferring otherwise lawful firearms. The publication, updating, or amending of an assault style firearms roster would also prevent Pioneer Valley Arms from disposing of any of their current and future inventory that is listed on the roster.
In other words, even if the new “assault style firearm” language has yet to be officially enforced, it’s already having an impact on gun sellers, which in turn is impacting gun buyers. The Attorney General clearly can’t admit it, but Chapter 135 is already doing damage to the right to keep and bear arms even with delays in its implementation.
Massachusetts will undoubtably offer more defenses to the latest iteration of its gun ban as the lawsuit moves forward, including the argument that the First Circuit upheld an earlier version of the ban. And given the makeup of the First Circuit, that argument could prove to be acceptable, at least when the case reaches the appellate court. Hopefully by then, though, the Supreme Court will have finally addressed the constitutionality of bans on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and the court will have no choice but to declare the state’s ban on commonly owned arms a violation of the Second Amendment.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
