The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’ assault weapons ban that was passed in 2024.
The NRA and other plaintiffs are targeting the provision in the “Act Modernizing Firearm Laws” that expands the state’s prohibition on certain types of guns. The complaint contends that the ban violates the Second Amendment by barring citizens from owning firearms that are “commonly possessed and used for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home.”
The legislation “mislabels as ‘assault-style’ firearms dozens of makes and models of common semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns and criminalizes their possession, ownership, sale, or other transfer.” This is a violation of the Second and 14th Amendments, according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs, including Massachusetts gun owners, Pioneer Valley Arms, and the Gun Owners’ Action League further argue that the law is vague and overbroad. It not only prohibits AR-15s and AK-47s, but also empowers the Secretary of Public Safety to create and amend an open-ended “assault-style firearm roster.”
This means that citizens and gun sellers “cannot know what firearms may soon be classified as ‘assault-style’ firearms.”
🚨 BREAKING: Today, NRA joined @GOALupdate, Pioneer Valley Arms, and individual members in filing a lawsuit against Massachusetts’s unconstitutional ban on commonly owned semiautomatic firearms. pic.twitter.com/fbHuHDJvFv
— NRA (@NRA) August 21, 2025
The Act imposes “sweeping arms bans, magazine restrictions, registration requirements, and licensing preconditions that are burdensome and unprecedented in our Nation’s historical tradition,” which means it runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling.
The plaintiffs claim the law is void because of its vagueness under due process principles. They insist that “an ordinary person cannot understand, under the Act’s definition, what firearms qualify as ‘assault-style’ firearms.” It imposes criminal penalties without giving fair notice of which firearms are prohibited. This will lead to “arbitrary enforcement” of the law.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declatory and permanent injunction against the enforcement of the ban.
In April, a federal appeals court upheld the state’s long-standing ban on assault weapons, claiming it aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of regulating dangerous arms. The ban was signed into law by then-Gov. Mitt Romney in 1998. The First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the National Association for Gun Rights’ argument that it violated the Second Amendment in light of the Bruen ruling.
The new law expands on the 1998 legislation, further empowering Massachusetts to ban more firearms. It stretched the definition of “assault-style firearm” to include “copies or duplicates” manufactured after 2016. It also levies civil and criminal penalties while creating the “roster” that state officials can arbitrarily update to include more banned firearms.
It’s not clear how the court will rule in this case. The NRA’s lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Eastern Division. This court has repeatedly ruled against gun rights, including cases involving challenges to the state’s 1998 assault weapons ban. It is clearly not a fan of the Second Amendment.
The NRA is likely banking on the possibility that the case could make it to the Supreme Court, which would probably overturn the law, given its prior ruling in Bruen.
Indeed, under the April challenge to the older ban, the government cited laws restricting Bowie knives, gunpowder storage, and trap guns to claim the state’s assault weapon ban has historical analogues that allow it to pass the Bruen test.
However, most of these laws were enacted in the early 1800s, meaning that they were not passed during the Founding era as Bruen requires. It seems some courts are stretching the time period known as the Founding era to justify upholding unconstitutional gun control laws.
It is clear this fight is far from over and it will likely be the highest court in the land that settles the matter.