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