Welcome back to Guns and Gadgets, where we break down the critical legal battles shaping our Second Amendment rights. Today we’re diving deep into the case of Granada v. Campbell, a legal showdown challenging Massachusetts’ controversial handgun regulations. Firearms Policy Coalition is back at it, fighting the unconstitutional firearms roster in Massachusetts. This case has been making headlines in Massachusetts since it was first filed on June 8th of 2021. It challenges Massachusetts’ ban on constitutionally protected, modern handguns commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes throughout the entire United States. In addition to state laws requiring that gun owners obtain a firearms identification card, or we call it a license to carry in Massachusetts, Massachusetts also prohibits the commercial sale of handguns that are not on its approved handgun roster, nor prohibited by the Attorney General’s handgun sales regulations.

As a result, Massachusetts residents are prevented from purchasing a large number of popular makes and models of constitutionally protected handguns. Like, for instance, you cannot buy a Gen 5 Glock in Massachusetts. Speaking of the Second Amendment, CMMG has a new product out. They released a video on it. I’ll link it down below. It’s on their YouTube channel, and I think you should really check it out. Let me know what you think about it. It’s the 338 Arc Descent. We were out there at CMMG to unveil this new product and record our first shots and thoughts on it.

It’s a shorty, and we stretched that thing out to 300 yards. It’s pretty impressive, and it’s so much fun. It’s like shooting sledgehammers downrange. The steel was actually louder than the operation of the actual firearm. So much fun. I’m going to pin a second video down below from CMMG’s YouTube channel as well. It’s not too late to get in on the 10-year anniversary giveaway for the Mark 47. This was my favorite gun as I traveled across the country at different events. I loved to shoot this thing. It was always the longest lines. It was the loudest out there.

I just love it. And don’t forget to use code GNG10 when you’re at CMMG and save. Huge. All right, back to this case. It’s filed in federal court, and it pits the plaintiffs, which includes Stefano Granada, Cameron Prosperi, the Gun Runner LLC, and the Firearms Policy Coalition against Massachusetts officials, AG Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, and Terrence Reedy, who’s the Secretary of EOPS, which is the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. What’s at stake? The future of firearm sales and Second Amendment rights in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Now, as I said, this case began in 2021, and it gained momentum after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bruin, which reshaped Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Massachusetts law heavily restricts the sale of many handguns deemed unsafe. This so-called handgun ban includes stringent requirements like childproofing mechanisms. Very vague on those. A loaded chamber indicator, a tamper-resistant serial number, and a magazine disconnect. Just a few of those. Just a few things. There’s more. And even some of the most popular firearms, like the Gen 4 or Gen 5 Glock 19, fail to meet these standards and are effectively banned from sale at FFLs in Massachusetts. The state basically claims that the newer generations of many firearms are not as safe as the older versions, even though manufacturers typically improve or enhance the product as the life cycle rolls on.

Now, the plaintiffs argue that this ban violates their constitutional rights. They highlight three things. Number one, the Second Amendment’s protection of common arms. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that handguns, including semi-automatic pistols, are the quintessential self-defense weapon. Number two, Massachusetts’s overreach. By dictating what firearms are safe, the state overrides the judgment of millions of Americans who trust and use these same firearms daily across the country. Number three, historical context. The Constitution protects arms in common use, and Massachusetts cannot rewrite this through restrictive laws. Now, following Bruin, the courts must analyze whether the challenged law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The plaintiffs argue that Massachusetts’s restrictions have no historical precedent from the founding era. Regulations then focused on keeping arms safe for militia use, not banning widely used weapons. This case isn’t just about Massachusetts, y’all. It’s about whether state governments can impose subjective standards that override individual rights. If the plaintiffs win, it could pave the way for challenges to similar restrictions nationwide from California to New York. If the defendants succeed, the bad guys, it could embolden states to impose even stricter limitations on firearm ownership. On January 6, 2025, FPC filed for summary judgment, asking a court to rule Massachusetts’ handgun ban unconstitutional without a full trial.

They argue that the ban cannot be squared with Supreme Court precedents like Heller and Bruin. This fight is far from over. Stay tuned as we follow this case and others that impact your constitutional rights. If you believe in defending the Second Amendment, like and subscribe to Guns N’ Gadgets. The button’s right down below. It doesn’t cost anything. It takes two seconds of your life, but it helps the channel greatly. Let me know in the comments what’s your take on Massachusetts’ handgun laws. I think I know what you’re going to say, but I’d love to read them so I could have a little giggle.

Guys and gals, thank you so much for your time. Until we see each other again, stay safe, America. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.