The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is back in the courtroom, fighting tooth and nail to safeguard the Second Amendment rights of Americans. On Tuesday, the FPC filed a motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’ draconian ban on several modern handgun models—a blatant overreach that undermines both constitutional freedoms and common sense.
The case, Granata v. Campbell, targets the Commonwealth’s ban on many common handguns, including the wildly popular Glock 19. FPC argues that the ban directly violates the Second Amendment when viewed under the standards established in the landmark Supreme Court cases Heller and Bruen. These precedents unequivocally affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms “in common use” for self-defense.
A Ban Built on Bureaucratic Nonsense
Massachusetts’ law governing handgun sales reads like a laundry list of anti-gun fantasies masquerading as safety measures. Under this law, licensed firearms dealers are prohibited from transferring a handgun unless it meets a series of arbitrary and onerous requirements. These include tamper-resistant serial numbers, metal composition that meets specific tensile strength and melting point standards, and built-in safety mechanisms to prevent unauthorized use or operation by a five-year-old child. The law also mandates features like load indicators or magazine safety disconnects on semi-automatic handguns.
The result? Many of the most popular and reliable handguns—trusted by millions of Americans for self-defense—are effectively outlawed in the Commonwealth. This includes striker-fired models like the Glock 19, widely regarded as one of the quintessential self-defense firearms.
FPC’s Argument: The Constitution is Clear
In its motion, the FPC wasted no time laying out the case against Massachusetts’ overreach.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that handguns are ‘arms’ that are indisputably in ‘common use’ for self-defense today [and] are, in fact, ‘the quintessential self-defense weapon,’” the motion begins. “As such, ordinary semi-automatic handguns and revolvers are categorically protected and cannot be banned. In direct defiance of this precedent, Massachusetts has closed its borders to large portions of the modern handgun market, banning as ‘unsafe’ many of the firearms that are most trusted by the American people across the country, substituting its judgment for theirs. That it cannot do.”
The FPC argues that the case doesn’t even require delving into historical precedent—the second principle established in Bruen—because the violation is so clear-cut under existing Supreme Court rulings.
“There is, therefore, no need to do any original historical analysis to resolve this case—it can be resolved on binding Supreme Court precedent alone,” the motion states. “To the extent that this Court reviews additional historical evidence that the Commonwealth may present, the result is the same. Heller already reviewed the relevant historical landscape and reduced it to an easily applicable principle: arms in common use cannot be banned. The Commonwealth will not be able to turn up any historical tradition that would contravene that principle.”
Massachusetts is Not Above the Constitution
FPC President Brandon Combs didn’t hold back in his statement announcing the court action.
“The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not exempt from the United States Constitution, and it cannot ban the sale of common handguns, full stop,” Combs said. “We look forward to eliminating this ban and continuing our progress and work restoring the right to keep and bear arms in Massachusetts and throughout the country.”
Combs’ statement underscores a critical truth: state leaders in Massachusetts have no authority to override the Constitution simply because they claim it’s for public safety. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and it’s high time Massachusetts got the memo.
A Broader Fight for Freedom
This case is about more than just one state’s misguided gun control laws. It’s part of a larger battle to stop the relentless assault on the Second Amendment nationwide. Anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats are always looking for new ways to undermine Americans’ right to self-defense, whether it’s through backdoor bans like this one or overt legislative overreach.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. If Massachusetts succeeds in its attempt to redefine “unsafe” handguns out of existence, it could set a dangerous precedent for other states to follow suit. That’s why organizations like the FPC are so vital in holding the line and ensuring that constitutional rights are not eroded by bad laws and bad actors.
Conclusion: The Second Amendment Must Prevail
Massachusetts’ handgun ban is a direct attack on the rights of its citizens, and it flies in the face of established Supreme Court precedent. Thankfully, the Firearms Policy Coalition is stepping up to the plate, fighting to ensure that the Second Amendment remains intact in the face of relentless opposition.
As this case unfolds, it’s crucial for Americans to stay informed and engaged. The battle for gun rights isn’t just about firearms—it’s about defending the fundamental freedoms that make this nation great. Let’s hope the courts deliver a decisive victory for the Constitution and send a clear message to Massachusetts: the Second Amendment is non-negotiable.