In 2024, a group of Massachusetts residents (acting pro se) filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of our state’s gun laws.
The complaint, filed in Middlesex Superior Court, sought to invalidate numerous firearm statutes and regulations:
- G.L.c. 269, S. 10A (Silencers);
- G.L.c. 140 S. 121,131 M(a) (threaded barrels);
- G.L.c. 269, S. 10(b) (“Dangerous Weapons”);
- G.L.c. 140 S. 131 1/2, 131 3/4 (roster of assault style weapons);
- G.L.c. 140 S. 121, 121C (Serialization requirements);
- G.L.c. 269, S. 10(j)-(k) (schools, polling places, and government controlled buildings);
- 205 Code Mass. Regs. S. 138.20 (gaming establishments);
- 740 Code Mass. Regs. S. 30.04 (airports);
- G.L.c. 269, S. 12D (Public ways);
- G.L.c. 258E, S. 4A-4C (Harassment Prevention Orders);
- G.L.c. 140, S. 131R-131Y (ERPOs):
- G..L.c. 140, S.121B (registration and reporting)
- G.L.c. 140 S. 121F(o)-(p) (licensing); and
- 940 Code Mass. Regs. S. 16.00 (handgun sales);
A superior court judge dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to file suit.
The judge’s memorandum explaining his decision is attached below.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.
Today the Appeals Court issued a slip opinion affirming the judge’s decision.
According to the applicable case law,
A party has standing when it can allege an injury within the area of concern of the statute, regulatory scheme, or constitutional guarantee under which the injurious action has occurred. Simply alleging injury alone is not sufficient and injuries that are speculative, remote, and indirect do not confer proper standing.
In this case, according to the Appeals Court,
the plaintiffs allege that they would act in various ways currently prohibited by law were it not for those laws. Each such allegation is conclusory. For example, the plaintiffs allege that they “would bear arms on the property of and in schools, colleges, and universities were it not for M.G.L. Chapter 269 § 10(j),” and that they “have each been on the property of and in schools, colleges, and universities multiple times and intend to continue doing so.” Nowhere in their complaint do the plaintiffs provide any plan to act in these ways, state which institutions they intend to visit, or explain why they so desire to visit them while armed.
Concluding that the plaintiffs’ allegations were too speculative, the justices upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case.
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.