1. 3

  2. 1

    The 1st Circuit’s opinion (with some guy named David Souter sitting on the three-judge panel) is here: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/18-1545P-01A.pdf

    It’s worth reading for laughs:

    Here, the Massachusetts legislature’s conclusion that the Commonwealth’s legitimate interests are best served by proscribing semiautomatic assault weapons and LCMs rests on substantial (although not incontrovertible) evidence regarding the inordinate dangers associated with the proscribed weapons. What is more, it strains credulity to argue that the fit between the Act and the asserted governmental interest is unreasonable.

    Accordingly, we hold that although the Act may well “touch[] the right to keep and bear arms,” Miller, 307 U.S. at 182, it does not impermissibly intrude upon that right because it withstands intermediate scrutiny.

    Here, we find that even if the Act implicates the core of the Second Amendment right, it (at most) minimally burdens that right. Consequently, we are obliged to cede some degree of deference to the decision of the Massachusetts legislature about how best to regulate the possession and use of the proscribed weapons.

    “Some degree!” Dramatic (and deceptive) understatement, that.