‘Unconstitutional': Mass. gun law opponents challenge restrictions on young adults
Firearms owners added another prong to their campaign against a sweeping Massachusetts law, filing a new federal lawsuit late last week challenging its constitutionality.
While other lawsuits and a repeal campaign continue to unfold, a coalition of industry groups including the National Rifle Association and Massachusetts gun owners on Friday sued over firearm age restrictions included in the wide-reaching package Gov. Maura Healey signed in July.
Plaintiffs argue the law violates Second Amendment rights by preventing Bay Staters older than 18 but younger than 21 from possessing or carrying handguns and semiautomatic firearms.
'Adults between the ages of 18 and 20 are part of 'the people,' and there is no historical tradition of limiting the firearms rights of adults on account of their age,' they wrote in their complaint. 'And as for the types of firearms that Massachusetts forbids them from owning, much less carrying, there can be no dispute that they qualify as 'arms' within the 'plain text' meaning of the Second Amendment.'
People ages 18 to 20 years old in Massachusetts can acquire firearm identification cards, but that document does not grant the ability to purchase, possess or transfer handguns or semiautomatic firearms, according to plaintiffs. To do so, someone would need to obtain a license to carry, which the law restricts only to people 21 and older.
One of the plaintiffs is Mack Escher of Brewster, a student at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy who falls in the 18-to-20 age range. He has a firearm identification card, but under the new law is unable to purchase or possess a handgun or semiautomatic firearm.
He was joined in the lawsuit by the Gun Owners' Action League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, the Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA as well as the national group Gun Owners of America Inc.
'Massachusetts's new gun control law is one of the most severe attacks on the right to keep and bear arms in our nation's history,' John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement alongside the lawsuit. 'Vindicating the rights of young adults is just our first step towards dismantling this unconstitutional law.'
Supporters of the massive law here argue that it will save lives, especially as police work to limit the spread of untraceable 'ghost guns,' and keep gun violence rates in Massachusetts low.
Plaintiffs cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, which deemed unconstitutional a New York law that required applicants to show special need to obtain a concealed carry license. That landmark decision served as a catalyst for the Massachusetts legislation two years later.
The new case focused on young adult firearms rights is the latest piece of a broad effort targeting the new restrictions and reforms.
It's at least the third lawsuit filed in federal court so far. The first challenge, filed soon after Healey signed the measure, focused on new licensing and training frameworks. Plaintiffs dropped that case in December after the Legislature delayed the effective date of a requirement for applicants to complete a live-fire training course.
The second case, filed in October, argues that updated definitions for assault-style weapons in the Massachusetts law violate the Second Amendment.
That case, known as Recchia v. Healey, is ongoing. On Friday, the assistant attorney general representing Massachusetts asked a judge for more time to outline the state's push to dismiss the suit, writing that she is also busy working on a multistate lawsuit challenging the Office of Management and Budget's potential federal funding freeze.
'That case was filed shortly after the Governor's first request for an extension in this action and has involved temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction proceedings, with frequent, urgent filing deadlines, including further preliminary injunction briefing due today, February 14, 2025, and a hearing on the motion to be held on Friday, February 21, 2025,' Assistant Attorney General Vanessa Arslanian wrote in a motion filed in the gun case Friday. 'A brief extension, therefore, will permit undersigned counsel to adequately prepare the reply memorandum.'
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Stearns granted the extension Tuesday, giving Arslanian until March 3 to file a memo in support of her motion to dismiss the firearms lawsuit.
Meanwhile, firearms owners are also hoping to undo the law by securing the support of voters.
A group of Second Amendment supporters and gun owners known as the Civil Rights Coalition secured enough voter signatures to put a question on the 2026 ballot proposing to repeal the law.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Child Gun Deaths Grow in States With Least Gun Controls
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Firearms deaths among children and adolescents aged 0 to 17 grew in states with the most permissive gun laws, says a study There were 6,029 excess gun deaths among children between 2011 and 2023 in the states with the "most permissive laws," according to the original investigation Firearm Laws and Pediatric Mortality in the US. States with simply "permissive laws" experienced 1,424 excess firearm deaths among the same age group in that period. California, Maryland, New York and Rhode Island have all experienced a decrease in pediatric firearm mortality since 2010. All four states were classified as states with "strict firearm laws." The results were published in JAMA Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association. Why It Matters The purpose of the study was to study excess firearm mortality rates among children following the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v Chicago. In 2010, the Court ruled that the right to Second Amendment right to bear arms extends to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling is considered a landmark decision on firearms regulation. Stock image: Close-up of two black metal 9mm automatic pistols with bullets all placed on a cement table with a black background. Stock image: Close-up of two black metal 9mm automatic pistols with bullets all placed on a cement table with a black To Know The study was conducted using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database. The study's authors compared data from 1999 to 2010 and 2011 to 2023. States were divided into groupings of most permissive, permissive and strict based on legal actions taken before and since 2010. In the most permissive and permissive states, non-Hispanic Black populations had the largest increase in firearm mortality among children, says the study. Pediatric mortality from other causes did not increase during this period. Firearms became the leading cause of death among children and teens in the U.S. in 2020. The study concludes: "States in the most permissive and permissive firearm law categories experienced greater pediatric firearm mortality during the post–McDonald v Chicago era." What People Are Saying Authors of Firearm Laws and Pediatric Mortality in the US: "These results demonstrate that permissive firearm laws contributed to thousands of excess firearm deaths among children living in states with permissive policies." Dr. Christopher Rees, a pediatric emergency physician at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta and assistant professor at Emory University School of Medicine, in comments to CNN: "It's not a political issue at the bedside. We should approach this as a way of protecting children and keeping children out of the emergency department." What Happens Next The study's authors suggested that future work should focus on determining which laws caused the most harm and which ones offered the most protection. Reference Faust JS, Chen J, Bhat S, et al. Firearm Laws and Pediatric Mortality in the US. JAMA Pediatr. Published online June 09, 2025. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.1363 Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's push to ban THC in Texas draws rare backlash from the right
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick was clear from the start. Weeks before this year's legislative session began, and before he announced any other priorities, the Republican Senate leader said he wanted lawmakers to ban, at any cost, products that contain the psychoactive compound in weed. His target was the multibillion-dollar hemp industry that had sprouted up thanks to a loophole in a 2019 state law that legalized products providing a similar high to marijuana. Patrick justified his conviction by contending that retailers had abused that loophole to sell products with dangerous amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. He accused the retailers of preying on the state's young people with shops posted near schools and marketing aimed at children. 'I couldn't, in good conscience, leave here knowing if we don't do something about it in the next two years — how many kids get sick?' Patrick said in March, talking about his willingness to force a special legislative session by blocking must-pass legislation from making it through the Texas Senate. And ultimately, Patrick got his way — and an explosion of backlash. As pressure mounts on the governor to veto a THC ban sent to his desk, Patrick finds himself in the unfamiliar position of taking flak from conservative activists and media personalities outside the Capitol, many of whom typically march in political lockstep with a man who has long been a darling of the right and done more than perhaps any other elected official to drive Texas rightward. After spearheading the THC ban, Patrick has been accused by some on the right of creating a nanny state and giving Mexican drug cartels a business opportunity to fill demand in the black market. He has been labeled a booze lobby shill for beer distributors who stand to benefit. A hardline conservative state lawmaker who voted against the ban said it contradicted 'the Texas mantra of being pro-business, pro-farmer and pro-veteran.' A Patrick spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment. 'This is stupid,' Dana Loesch, the former National Rifle Association spokesperson who is now the host of a nationally syndicated conservative talk radio show, wrote on social media in response to Patrick's argument that the ban would keep THC away from children. 'It's like the gun ban argument with a different variable. Kids aren't buying it anymore than any other controlled product (alcohol, cigarettes, et al) and if they are, do your job as a parent and parent instead of idiotically expanding government.' Before the blowback erupted from inside his house, Patrick courted Republicans in both chambers of the Legislature to pass Senate Bill 3. The law bans products containing THC — and would eradicate the state's $8 billion hemp industry and its estimated 50,000 jobs if it survives Gov. Greg Abbott's veto pen and expected legal challenges. Abbott, whose office has been inundated with calls to veto SB 3, has not revealed his intentions for the proposed law. The governor could sign SB 3 into law, veto it or do nothing and let it become law without his signature. Proponents of the ban have argued it is needed to rein in a wild west industry that's selling products with dangerously high levels of THC and without proper oversight. Patrick has argued it would be unrealistic to regulate the industry under tighter guardrails — as hemp business leaders and others proposed — because doing so would require an impossible amount of manpower. Lawmakers also passed a bill to expand the state's medical marijuana program by offering more products and adding more qualifying conditions, an olive branch extension to vets and THC users with chronic conditions who opposed the retail ban. Patrick said the medical expansion 'will help those in true need of relief.' But he and his allies have remained steadfast behind the THC ban, even amid pushback from the right. 'Retailers across Texas have exploited a state agriculture law to sell life-threatening, unregulated forms of tetrahydrocannabinol to Texans,' said Sen. Charles Perry, the Lubbock Republican who carried SB 3, when the upper chamber approved the bill. 'These rogue retailers are selling THC products containing several times more THC content than marijuana purchased from a drug dealer off the street. These dangerous products must not be allowed to permeate our communities and endanger Texas children.' Criticism on the right has come from veterans who say they use the products as alternatives to opioid painkillers to help with a variety of ails, industry leaders who say the Republican-controlled state is turning its back on small businesses, and conservative politicos who have no shortage of arrows they have been aiming at Patrick. 'What lives were destroyed by low grade THC shops, Dan? Can you name one?' Kenny Webster, a Houston conservative talk radio host, posted on social media. 'Just one. Go ahead.' Some recent scrutiny was driven by a news conference Patrick called to push back on criticism of the ban, even after it had already cleared both chambers and was on its way to Abbott's desk. Flanked by senators and law enforcement officials, Patrick stood in front of a variety of THC products laid out on a table and made his case. The lieutenant governor said he wanted to encourage the news media to write about the dangers of THC. He also said he had 'total confidence in the governor. … I'm not worried about the governor understanding it. I'm worried about you all understanding it.' At one point Patrick lobbed a bag of edibles at a reporter. He later asked another reporter if he was 'crazy' for inquiring about the move to limit adults' access to the products. 'If he was trying to make a case for a THC ban, I can't think of a more bizarre and counterproductive spectacle than yesterday's press conference,' said Rolando Garcia, a member of the State Republican Executive Committee who routinely criticizes GOP lawmakers for perceived breaches of conservative orthodoxy. 'We have a mad king surrounded by courtiers and yes men afraid to tell him he's making a fool of himself.' Some opponents of the total ban have vowed retribution against Patrick, who is running for reelection in 2026 armed with an endorsement from President Donald Trump and more than $33 million in his campaign coffers. Those factors — and Patrick's long history of promoting policies that most primary voters see as higher priorities than preserving THC access — mean it is unlikely the blowback will cost Patrick much, according to political observers. 'It's hard to imagine given Patrick's position and where he is now that somehow this is going to be in and of itself the source of some fundamental political threat,' said Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. 'Honestly I think we're not used to seeing Dan Patrick criticized very much from within his own party and so it's really sticking out, and that's fair.' Meanwhile, another member of the SREC, Morgan Eakin, on social media questioned Patrick's conservative bona fides by pointing to when Patrick came under fire from his own party over gun rights. As the Legislature in 2021 contemplated letting most Texans carry a handgun without a license or training, Patrick at first said the Senate did not have the votes to pass the measure. Lawmakers ultimately passed the bill, often referred to by Republicans as constitutional carry because of their belief that it is an American's constitutional right to pack heat without involving the government. 'We have to ask ourselves how so many were gaslit into believing the Senate and Dan Patrick were consistently more in line with basic constitutional principles and that [former House Speaker Dade Phelan] and the House were unequivocally liberal,' Eakin wrote. Phelan, a Beaumont Republican who clashed with Patrick during his time as speaker, weighed in on SB 3 Monday, writing on social media that 'Texans do not want a total ban.' 'They do want a reasonable, regulated hemp market free of dangerous products — especially those advertised and sold to minors,' Phelan, who voted for the bill, wrote. 'The gas station garbage must go while Texans enjoy the freedom they expect from conservative governance.' Despite the blowback, Patrick remains a champion of conservative policies and key player in GOP victories. This session alone, state lawmakers passed stiffer bail laws, required that most sheriffs work with federal immigration authorities and approved measures allowing time for prayer in public schools and requiring classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. Patrick has rarely taken much heat from his own party. One notable instance was also related to guns after a pair of mass shootings. In 2019, a gunman wanting to quell an 'invasion' of Hispanic immigrants went to a Walmart in El Paso, where he opened fire and murdered 23 people and wounded 22 others. Shortly after that attack, a gunman terrorized Midland and Odessa with a shooting spree that resulted in the deaths of eight people. Patrick said it was high time the state required background checks on gun sales between strangers. "Someone in the Republican Party has to take the lead on this," he said at the time, adding that he was 'willing to take an arrow' for the stance. The backlash, once again, was swift. His conservatism was called into question and some on the right even painted him as a bigger threat to guns than Democrat Beto O'Rourke, who had infamously said during a presidential debate the same year, 'Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15.' Patrick withstood the pushback. And lawmakers never approved legislation he called for regulating private stranger-to-stranger gun sales. Since allowing permitless carry in 2021, lawmakers have expanded access to firearms, including with a bill this year to legalize sawed-off shotguns, among other victories for gun rights advocates. The lack of fallout from Patrick's push to regulate private gun sales may offer a clue about how the SB 3 situation will shake out. Patrick received 77% of the 2022 GOP primary vote against only token opposition, and he was easily reelected in November. Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Colorado joins lawsuit against ATF over deal ending ban on rapid-fire triggers for rifles
DENVER (KDVR) — Colorado is one of 16 states that have sued the Trump administration over its plan to allow the sale of forced-reset triggers that make semiautomatic rifles fire more rapidly and return devices already seized to their owners. The suit announced Monday argues that returning the triggers would violate federal law, pose a threat to residents and law enforcement and worsen gun violence. It was filed in federal court in Maryland. Governor signs bill requiring training for semiautomatic guns, banning rapid-fire conversion devices 'It's hard enough for our local law enforcement officials to protect Colorado communities from gun violence without the federal government willfully ignoring the law,' said Attorney General Weiser. 'The law is clear: machine guns, and devices that turn a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun, are illegal. We're suing to stop the ATF and the administration from making our communities more dangerous by distributing thousands of devices that turn firearms into weapons of war. These weapons have no place in our communities, and I will continue to fight to keep Coloradans safe from gun violence.' The Colorado law banning the sale of rapid-fire conversion devices, including forced-reset triggers, was signed into law in April and will go into effect on Aug. 1, 2026. Second Amendment supporters have called on the U.S. Attorney General to investigate the measure as an infringement on the U.S. Constitution. Weiser said in a release announcing the state's participation in the lawsuit that machine gun conversion devices like the forced-reset triggers are frequently used in violent crimes and mass shootings. The state attorney general said that by using these devices, firearms can exceed the rate of fire of many military machine guns. 'ATF has noted a significant rise in the use of these types of devices, leading to incidents of machine-gun fire increasing by 1,400% from 2019 through 2021,' Weiser said in a press release. There had been several legal battles over the devices, which replace the typical trigger on an AR-15-style rifle. The Biden administration had previously argued the triggers qualify as machine guns under federal law because constant finger pressure on the triggers will keep a rifle firing, essentially creating an illegal machine gun. The ATF previously classified the triggers as machine guns, but under a directive from the Trump Administration, the bureau signed the settlement agreement that promises to stop enforcing federal law against the devices. New requirements begin July 1 for Colorado concealed carry permits Rare Breed Triggers, the maker of the devices, had argued that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was wrong in its classification and ignored demands to stop selling the triggers before being sued by the Biden administration. The Justice Department reached a deal announced last month with Rare Breed Triggers to allow the sale of forced-reset triggers. The company was previously represented by David Warrington, Trump's current White House counsel. Under the settlement, Rare Breed Triggers agreed not to develop such devices to be used on handguns, according to the Justice Department. The settlement requires the ATF to return triggers that it had seized or that owners had voluntarily surrendered to the government. The states' lawsuit is being led by the attorneys general of Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey. Other states involved are Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, along with the District of Columbia. The attorneys general in those states are all Democrats, though the office in Hawaii is technically nonpartisan. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
