Trump DOJ Submits Brief in Massachusetts Handgun Roster Case

AmmoLand ^ | February 4, 2026 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On January 28, 2025, Harmeet K. Dhillon filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Trump administration, detailing why the Massachusetts handgun roster is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.  Harmeet K. Dhillon is Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. The lawsuit timeline began almost 5 years ago.

In 2021, a number of Massachusetts residents and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed suit against then AG Maura Healey in Massachusetts, contending the Massachusetts handgun roster violated the rights protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

On May 19, 2022, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss the case, claiming the handgun roster regulations were allowed as “safety requirements”.  Plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  On April 7, 2023, the appeals court remanded the case back to the District Court, to be reconsidered under the Supreme Court Bruen Decision. On August 29, 2025, the District Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants (State of Massachusetts) for a second time. Plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for a second time on September 9, 2025.  The lawsuit is now Granata v Campbell, as Andrea Joy Campbell is the current AG of Massachusetts.

The amicus brief filed by the Trump administration’s Civil Rights Division makes several important arguments in the case. In particular, the brief shows the following:

• Supreme Court precedent: Arms that are in common use may not be banned.
• Regulations on the sale of arms may not be used to effect a ban
• Bans do not have to be complete to be unconstitutional
• The American people decide what arms are in common use, not judges.
• Some arms are clearly not in common use, such as ICBMs or nuclear weapons.

---

TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; handgun; ma; massachusetts; trump

[marktwain]

The right to keep and bear arms necessarily implies the right to acquire arms. The Massachusetts handgun roster infringes on that right.

[Carry_Okie]

Some arms are clearly not in common use, such as ICBMs or nuclear weapons.

At the time the Second Amendment was drafted, passed, and ratified privateers owned military style ships, the most powerful weapons of that day. Hence, this "common use" restriction does not meet an originalist interpretation in principle, however obviously nuclear weapons were incomprehensible to the founders. It was technically a simpler time.

[Uncle Miltie]

What does the Handgun Roster do?

[marktwain]

There were restrictions in play at the time of ratification to the effect that unusual and dangerous arms, or at least the display of them, could be regulated, even banned.

Cannon were privately owned. In fact, muzzleloading cannon are mostly unregulated today. Hand operated rapid fire crew served weapons are mostly unregulated today (Gatling gun types).

“In common use” is not a ceiling, but a floor. If arms are “in common use” they may not be banned. If they are not “in common use”, they remain in play at the moment.

The definition of “in common use” has not been completely nailed down by the Supreme Court, although Justice Alito indicated a number of about 200,000 in the USA should be sufficient, in his concurrence in the Caetano decision.

[marktwain]

What does the Handgun Roster do?

---

The Handgun Roster is a list of handguns which may be legally purchased in Massachusetts. If a handgun is not on the Roster, dealers may not sell it. As I understand it, all handgun sales in Massachusetts have to go through a dealer, but there are probably exceptions.

The handgun roster allows the State of Massachusetts to determine what handguns are available to the people of Massachusetts.

The Supreme Court precedent is the State does not have the authority to decide. The people themselves decide by their choices in purchasing weapons, thus rendering them “in common use”.

[Uncle Miltie]

Aha. Thank you.

[Carry_Okie]

There were restrictions in play at the time of ratification to the effect that unusual and dangerous arms, or at least the display of them, could be regulated, even banned.

Now you've done it! You made me curious. Examples?

In fact, muzzleloading cannon are mostly unregulated today.

Definitely need one for the driveway. :-) (only half joking)

[Thank You Rush]

What is a handgun roster?

[Thank You Rush]

That answers my question - as always, I should have kept reading the replies.....

[Thank You Rush]

I think the confusion in our questions is about the NAME of this whatever! A ROSTER is usually a list of people or organizations. MA couldn’t have come up with a more accurate name for such a list? That’s what it is - A LIST!

[marktwain]

Here is a snippet from the Bruen decision, as used in an article I wrote in August of 2022:

If you wish to understand how few gun laws there were, read the majority and minority opinions in Bruen, the Second Amendment decision from the Supreme Court in 2022. From Bruen p. 4:

Respondents next direct the Court to the history of the Colonies and early Republic, but they identify only three restrictions on public carry from that time. While the Court doubts that just three colonial regulations could suffice to show a tradition of public-carry regulation, even looking at these laws on their own terms, the Court is not convinced that they regulated public carry akin to the New York law at issue. The statutes essentially prohibited bearing arms in a way that spread “fear” or “terror” among the people, including by carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 554 U. S., at 627. Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered “dangerous and unusual” during the colonial period, they are today “the quintessential self-defense weapon.” Id., at 629. Thus, these colonial laws provide no justification for laws restricting the public carry of weapons that are unquestionably in common use today. Pp. 37–42.

As I recall, there were laws in at least a couple of colonies which forbid the carry of “dangerous and unsual” arms to the terror of the public. These stemmed from an old English law from the middle ages, updated a bit to the English colonies.

The American tradition changed the old laws use of “dangerous or unusual” to “dangerous and unusual”. This is, in effect, simply “unusual” because all arms are “dangerous”. Some have stated that dangerous in this case actually means “unusually dangerous”, which is plausible.

The old English law from 1328 was the Statue of Northhampton.

American colonial law used similar terms in Massachusetts in 1694.

Tennessee did so in 1801,

North Carolina had a “carry over” from colonial times which was challenged in 1843, and upheld, although it was aimed at the terror part much more clearly than merely being armed.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

In 1941, after seeing how the Nazis used firearm registration forms to seize privately owned guns in occupied France, The US Congress passed a resolution to NEVER allow registration of firearms in the USA.
The democrats have been trying to get guns registered since 1962 when Thomas J. Dodd and Emanual Cellar called for the registration of Handgun ONLY! “Rifles will not be affected!”

.
1962-Call for Handgun registration ONLY! “Rifles will not be affected”.
1963-Call for registration of All guns and a ban on 5 shot bolt action army surplus rifles!
1968-Got a ban on small foreign handguns and 5 shot bolt action army surplus rifles.
1971 Call for Ban on small American handguns. “Rifles will not be affected!”
1975 Call for Ban on all handguns. “Rifles will not be affected!”
1981 Actress Lee Grant on ABC’s Good Morning America pokes holes in the air and yells...
“THE NRA IS A RIFLE ORGANIZATION! THEY SHOULD GIVE UP THEIR HANDGUNS AND THEY CAN KEEP THEIR RIFLES!”
1984 They came for the rifles.
1994 Ten year “ban” on “a-s-s-ault rifles”.
2000 Call to ban single shot .50 cal rifles.
Now, in 2025 they are back to the 1964 demands for MORE GUN CONTROL on COMMON 4- shot BOLT ACTION RIFLES.
Rest assured if they get a ban on semi-auto rifles, they will be back for handguns , and more and more.

[Carry_Okie]

The American tradition changed the old laws use of “dangerous or unusual” to “dangerous and unusual”. This is, in effect, simply “unusual” because all arms are “dangerous”. Some have stated that dangerous in this case actually means “unusually dangerous”, which is plausible.

Thanks for the context, which easily becomes both too temporal and cultural to function as law. For example, open carry in a California city would be regarded as "dangerous and unusual" today.

I am reminded of an amusing story. I occasionally wear a S&W .357 686-5 in a chest holster when I'm out crawling around weeding and mountain lions are a particular risk. We had an incident where CalFire wanted to evacuate an injured party from the emergency helipad on our hilltop. So given all the lights and trucks up there I sauntered up the driveway to see what was going on. I met this nice young firefighter who treated me with enormous trepidation and timidly asking my permission, but I couldn't understand what his problem was.

I'd forgotten I had the pistol hanging on my chest (the Guide's Choice holster is really that comfortable). In a way, it was hilarious, but I wouldn't do that again.

[marktwain]

There has been a great effort to demonize the open carry of handguns.

There has been significant push-back in the last 10-15 years.

California is an outlier, but a large outlier.

There is a recent court case where California was slapped down for making most open carry in the state illegal.

https://www.ammoland.com/2026/01/ninth-circuit-rules-californias-open-carry-ban-unconstitutional/

[Carry_Okie]

There is a recent court case where California was slapped down for making most open carry in the state illegal.

Knew that. When the State tried to outlaw open carry in public, I called the County Sheriff and explained why I carry on our property. My question revolved around carrying on the County public road when the property line goes down the middle. The officer's response, "That sounds like within the spirit of the law," for which I thanked him. Given that this is liberal-land, I don't want them blowing out here because of a report that I'm armed in public. There may be one anyway.

[Organic Panic]

It’s a “roster.” Not a registry.” - ATF

[Scrambler Bob]

California has a similar list — for ‘safety’ of course.

If a handgun is somehow in the state, it can be sold and transferred within the state, (through an FFL) even if it is off the list.

Maybe you owned it before the list, or it dropped off the list. Some manufacturers don’t want to pay for all the tests required to check if it is ‘safe’.

Meanwhile some LEOs can purchase those not on the list. And they can sell them. But that has led to abuse of the system and other issues.

Then the state makes up more rules to stop that. The state goes on forever, the story never ends.

[marktwain]

California has a similar list — for ‘safety’ of course.

If a handgun is somehow in the state, it can be sold and transferred within the state, (through an FFL) even if it is off the list.

---

If the Massachusetts law is found to be unconstitutional (which is the way to bet), the California law will probably ge struck down as well.

Both are “work around” methods to restrict Second Amendment rights.

If the state can dictate what model of handgun you may have, they could eventually say you may only have a single shot .22 rimfire, or perhaps a single shot .32 rimfire, as the ammunition for those is very difficult to find!

[gleeaikin]

Given all the concern about lists for guns and gunholders, I wonder how people feel about required state voter lists being claimed or seized by ANY federal government administration of either party. Also about the seizure of actual boxes of votes, without allowing the state to record this information prior to the seizure.

Which is more important, the right for secret gun ownership, or the right for a secret vote.

[SunkenCiv]

• 'Anyone who breaks into someone's home should expect to get shot': Gun-toting Florida homeowner takes care of business [02/06/2026]
  • Horror as mom, 30, found dead after 'execution style murder' at bar she owned [02/06/2026]
  • Man Gives Woman a Ride on Cold Night and She Shoots Him Dead [02/06/2026]
• Lemme guess -- he was trying to hide from ICE? Olive Garden cook commits suicide after dunking head into searing hot deep fryer: cops [02/05/2026]
  • or Maybe Thought the deep fryer was His Ass: Olive Garden cook kills self by dunking head into searing hot deep fryer: cops [02/05/2026]
• Walmart sued by customer after he ate raw bake-to-eat bread that expanded in his STOMACH [02/05/2026]