Massachusetts Made Millions of Popular Handguns Illegal – Federal Court Upholds It

A federal judge in Boston has upheld Massachusetts’ handgun roster, a system that blocks licensed dealers from selling hundreds of popular, modern pistols that are widely available in most of the country. In Granata v. Campbell (Aug. 29, 2025), Chief U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper granted summary judgment to the state, concluding that the roster does not violate the Second Amendment. The decision landed like a thunderclap in the gun-rights world, because it effectively controls which makes and models can be sold at retail – including many Gen5 Glocks, SIGs, CZs, Walthers, and more.

FPC’s Reaction: “As Dangerous as It Is Wrong”

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) condemned the ruling the same day it was issued. In a statement, FPC President Brandon Combs called the opinion “as dangerous as it is wrong,” arguing that it doesn’t even treat the ban as implicating the Second Amendment. He said the logic would allow governments to prohibit every make and model but one and still claim there’s no constitutional problem. FPC vowed to appeal, pledging to fight “whatever it takes, for as long as it takes,” and credited FPC Action Foundation for strategic support in the case.

What the Roster Actually Does

As Jared Yanis explained on Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News, Massachusetts publishes a state-approved list of handguns that dealers may sell. To get on the list, a model must clear destructive safety tests and meet design mandates such as drop tests, minimum melting-point and tensile-strength standards, childproofing (often interpreted as heavy trigger pulls or other features), loaded chamber indicators or magazine disconnects for semi-autos, and tamper-resistant serial numbers. If a gun lacks a required feature, the dealer cannot sell it – even if that same model is a top-selling, common self-defense handgun in other states.

The Plaintiffs and the Claims

The lawsuit, Granata v. Campbell, was filed by FPC alongside two licensed Massachusetts gun owners and an in-state retailer, The Gun Runner, LLC. According to FPC, the roster operates as a backdoor handgun ban by barring the retail sale of a huge slice of the modern handgun market. The plaintiffs argued that Bruen requires the state to show that such restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation – something they say Massachusetts failed to do. In FPC’s view, the state is simply choosing which guns citizens may own, despite those models being in common use around the country.

How the Court Saw It

Yanis summarized Judge Casper’s two-step analysis: First, the court treated the roster as regulating commercial sales, emphasizing that the plaintiffs already own multiple handguns and so their core possessory rights weren’t meaningfully constrained. Second, even if the law implicated the Second Amendment, the court said Massachusetts had enough historical analogues – including proofing/testing laws for weapons, gunpowder storage rules, restrictions on trap/spring guns seen as unusually dangerous, and 19th-century limits involving minors – to justify a safety-focused scheme. The judge concluded this wasn’t a ban but rather a condition on sales that fits a longstanding tradition of safety regulation.

Mark W. Smith’s Counter: Heller, Bruen, and “Common Use”

Attorney Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner blasted the ruling as incompatible with Heller and Bruen. He argues that handguns are the quintessential self-defense weapon recognized by the Supreme Court, and that bearable arms in common use cannot be banned or functionally removed from the retail market. Labeling the roster a mere “commercial” rule doesn’t cure the problem, he says, because the right to keep and bear necessarily presumes a right to acquire. If you can’t buy the common handguns most Americans actually use, your constitutional right is crippled in practice.

The “Ink and Press” Analogy for Acquiring Guns

Smith also invoked a familiar First Amendment analogy: in Minneapolis Star, a targeted tax on newspaper ink was unconstitutional because it burdened the means of exercising free speech. By the same logic, he contends, a state can’t burden the means of acquiring a protected arm and then claim the core right remains intact. Put plainly: you’re not born with a handgun. If the state can block dealers from selling the common models Americans prefer, the right to keep those arms isn’t meaningful.

Why FPC Says This Violates Supreme Court Guidance

FPC points to Heller’s admonition that government can’t say, “You can’t have this arm because you can have that one.” Popular handguns like the Glock 19 are ubiquitous nationwide; if the state can exclude such models from the retail shelves on design pretexts – mag disconnects, LCIs, trigger weight – then the constitutional status of common arms is just window dressing. As Combs framed it, the decision “effectively said governments could ban every handgun make and model but one,” and still claim the right is untouched.

Yanis on the Stakes Beyond Massachusetts

Yanis warns that, if this ruling stands, other states may adopt similar rosters, picking winners and losers in the market and telling residents which guns they’re “allowed” to buy. He highlights how the roster outsources preferences to regulators, often excluding entire families of pistols that are standard almost everywhere else. He also notes that while some models might be obtained through private transfers, the retail ban is what gives the roster its real bite – especially for new buyers who rely on gun stores to enter the market.

Smith’s “Flip-Side Features” Point

Smith makes a clever observation: in so-called assault-weapon cases, states argue that adding certain features (e.g., pistol grips, adjustable stocks, threaded barrels) makes a rifle dangerous and unusual – and therefore banable. In the handgun roster, the state flips the script: guns are banned from sale because they lack certain features (mag disconnects, LCIs, specific childproofing metrics). Either way, Smith says, the state is using features to carve out broad categories of common arms from the market – something Heller and Bruen don’t permit.

A Right Filtered Through a Checklist

Here’s the tension in plain English. Massachusetts says: We’re not banning handguns; we’re enforcing safety standards for sales. Gun owners reply: If your checklist wipes out the most popular models, that’s a ban by another name. The legal question is whether history and tradition support modern feature mandates that systematically exclude common handguns from retail. My read: courts will have to decide if proofing analogues (testing gunpowder, banning trap guns, storage rules) are truly relevantly similar to a model-by-model preclearance that kneecaps consumer choice in the most popular category of arms.

Possession vs. Acquisition Isn’t a Real Divide

The district court emphasized that plaintiffs own many handguns, so the right isn’t curtailed. That strikes me as a thin reed. Heller rejected the idea that access to some firearms saves a ban on others; it’s the people’s choices that define what is common. If the state can permanently gatekeep those choices by blocking retail channels, it risks turning the Second Amendment into a museum pass – you can look at the classics you already own, but good luck getting the new standard-issue tools everyone else uses.

What Happens Next Procedurally

FPC says it will appeal to the First Circuit and, if needed, push toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Expect appellate briefing to revolve around three questions: (1) Does a retail-sale roster implicate the Second Amendment at the text step? (2) Are the cited historical analogues sufficiently similar in how and why they burdened the right? (3) Can the state condition sales in a way that systematically excludes widely used handguns without triggering Heller’s ban-on-common-arms red line?

The National Ripple Risk

If the First Circuit affirms, roster regimes could spread. If it reverses, the decision could chill attempts to replicate Massachusetts’ approach in other jurisdictions. And if the Supreme Court ultimately takes the case, look for a clarifying rule on whether governments can preclear models of common arms – and how far the state can go before conditions on sale become de facto bans.

The Map Is Being Redrawn in Real Time

FPC’s brief statement captured the gun-rights view: the ruling is “absurd” and “lawless,” and it defies the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment cases. Jared Yanis translated the practical effect for everyday owners: the state just told you which guns you’re allowed to buy. Mark W. Smith supplied the legal spine: common use controls, and acquisition is part of the keep and bear ecosystem. Whether you cheer the roster as safety or condemn it as a ban in disguise, one thing is certain – the next rounds in Granata v. Campbell will matter well beyond Massachusetts.