Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island

646 F.Supp.3d 368

OCEAN STATE TACTICAL, LLC; Jonathan Hirons; James Robert Grundy; Jeffrey Goyette; and Mary Brimer, Plaintiffs, v. State of RHODE ISLAND; Colonel Darnell S. Weaver; and Peter F. Neronha, Defendants.

No. 22-CV-246 JJM-PAS

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

Signed December 14, 2022

Thomas E. Romano, Michael A. Kelly, I. Dane Evan Ardente, Kelly, Souza & Parmenter, P.C., Providence, RI, for Plaintiffs Ocean State Tactical, LLC, Jonathan Hirons, James Robert Grundy, Jeffrey Goyette, Mary Brimer.

Sarah Rice, Keith David Hoffmann, Rhode Island Office of the Attorney General, Providence, RI, for Defendants State of Rhode Island, Colonial Darnell S. Weaver, Peter F. Nerhona.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

John J. McConnell, Jr., Chief Judge

Four gun owners and a registered firearms dealer (collectively, "plaintiffs") have come to this Court challenging a six-month-old Rhode Island law that prohibits the possession of Large Capacity Feeding Devices¹ ("LCMs"), which turn firearms into multiple-shot weapons. The legislation was passed on June 21, 2022, with a grace period of 180 days, by which time all those in possession of such devices must have (a) permanently modified them to be incapable of holding more than ten rounds; or (b) divested themselves of them by selling them to a federally registered dealer or turning them in to law enforcement. R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47.1-3(b) ("LCM Ban"). Although the law does not address other dispositions, its delayed effective date until December 18, 2022 allowed those owning such magazines to lawfully move them from the state by transporting them to a place where the owner could lawfully possess them or by selling them to an out of state firearms dealer. The LCM Ban declares unlawful possession after December 18, 2022 a felony. Id. § 11-47.1-3(a).

The plaintiffs, suing the State of Rhode Island, its Attorney General, and its Superintendent of State Police ("the State"), mount three constitutional challenges: (a) that the statute violates the Second Amendment (Count I); (b) that the statute's command amounts to a "taking" of the magazines without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment (Counts II and III); and (c) that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of Due Process in that its terms are vague and its reach is not justified by the police power of the State (Count IV).² These allegations, and their invocation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3), 1983, 1988 to redress a deprivation of rights under color of state law, successfully call on the federal question jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction that the defendants oppose. ECF No. 8.³ Both sides have submitted extensive briefs, accompanied by evidentiary declarations from a number of expert witnesses. They agreed the Court would accept those submissions as evidence in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. On November 5, 2022, the Court heard oral arguments. This Memorandum and Order follows and, for the reasons stated, the Court denies preliminary injunctive relief.⁴

In summary, the Court finds that the plaintiffs lack a likelihood of success on the merits, that they will not suffer irreparable harm if the law is allowed to take effect, and that the public interest is served by denying injunctive relief. Specifically, regarding the merits, the plaintiffs have failed in their burden to demonstrate that LCMs are "Arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment's text. Moreover, even were they "arms," the plaintiffs have failed to prove that LCMs are weapons relating to self-defense. There is no Second Amendment violation from the LCM Ban because of those two shortfalls of persuasion. The Court must therefore consider the LCM Ban outside the core of Second Amendment protection. The Court further finds that the statute is not vague. Because the LCM Ban is a valid exercise of police power, there is no "taking" requiring just compensation and, consequently, no violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Rhode Island General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, legislation to lower the risk of harm that results from the availability of devices that assist someone intent on murdering large numbers of people. This common-sense public safety legislation does not implicate the Second Amendment and violates no one's constitutional rights.

I. BACKGROUND

Chapter 47 of Title 11 of the Rhode Island General Laws, known as the "Firearms Act," has long regulated the type of firearms that may be lawfully possessed in Rhode Island. Some weapons have been banned altogether, such as sawed-off shotguns and machine guns.⁵ Still others are lawful only when carried by persons licensed to possess them or in limited specified locations such as target shooting areas or the home. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 11-47-8 (license or permit except to keep at home), 11-47-10 (target range). Some people are excluded altogether from possessing firearms. Id. §§ 11-47-5 (possession by felons), 11-47-6 ("mental incompetents" and "drug addicts"), 11-47-7 (undocumented immigrants).

On June 21, 2022, Rhode Island amended Chapter 47.1 to prohibit additional weaponry that had become popular additions to the arsenals of some individuals relatively recently and have been employed in recent mass shootings. For example, Chapter 47 added to its list of prohibited items "ghost guns," which are guns that lack serial or any other identifying numbers, Id. § 11-47-2(8);⁶ "3D print[ed]" guns, which are assembled under computer control from computer files, Id. § 11-47-2(1);⁷ and "bump-fire stocks" which, by replacing a semiautomatic weapon's standard stock with one that does not require a trigger-pull between rounds, makes the firearm function similarly to a machine gun, Id. § 11-47-2(4).⁸

None of the foregoing prohibitions is challenged here. But, when it amended Chapter 47, the General Assembly enacted § 11-47.1-1 et seq., which specifically ban LCMs. Rhode Island was not alone in doing so. In the wake of recent mass shootings, many of which have occurred in schools, a number of states have enacted limitations on the capacity of magazines that enable a firearm to fire multiple rounds. While the maximum number of rounds permitted in a single magazine varies, the majority of states with bans prohibited the sale or possession of any magazine containing more than ten rounds. ECF No. 22-1, Ex. B, at 2 (internal pagination).⁹ For the uninitiated—which, until this case appeared on its docket, the Court considered itself—magazines are devices holding extra ammunition and are inserted into and removed from the frame of the firearm, much as an extra battery-pack gets swapped in and out of a battery-operated tool, like a leaf blower, for example. "Reloading," in this context, means removing an empty magazine and substituting it with a full one.¹⁰ The process may be as simple as pressing a button to eject the spent magazine, in order to push a new one in. ECF No. 22-1, Ex. B at n.33.

The reader should have at least a cursory understanding of handguns and how they operate. Handguns are built with an internal mechanism that holds the bullets. They may be revolving cylinders or fixed chambers. "A 'magazine' is a vehicle for carrying ammunition. It can be either integral to the gun or detachable." ECF No. 22-1, Ex. B at n.2. The handguns that use magazines are built with slots into which the magazines are inserted. Magazines became prevalent around the mid-nineteenth century. ECF No. 22-1, Ex. A at 36. "Most pistols sold in the United States come equipped with magazines that hold between 10 and 17 rounds." ECF No. 22-1, Ex. B at 3 (internal pagination). "Most modern semi-automatic firearms, whether handguns or semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s, use detachable box magazines." ECF No. 19-3 at ¶ 5.

When a multiple-round device like an LCM is attached, a handgun becomes a "semiautomatic" weapon, meaning that it is capable of rapidly firing several bullets, one right after another. However, the gun still requires a trigger-pull for each round fired. Semiautomatic, MERRIAM-WEBSTER (Dec. 8, 2022), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semiautomatic. Nevertheless, a semiautomatic weapon can fire at rates of 300 to 500 rounds per minutes. Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 136 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc). A fully automatic weapon, such as a machine gun, differs from a semiautomatic weapon in that only one trigger-pull is necessary to release a barrage of bullets that are then sprayed continuously from the barrel until a manual action is taken to stop them.

As described infra, there is no legacy provision in the LCM Ban and thus, on the day it is effective, those who already possess such magazines will be guilty of a felony. The law, however, granted a 180-day period for those individuals to avoid that predicament. These individuals can modify the magazine to a lower capacity, they can sell or transfer the magazine to a person or location where it is lawful, or they can surrender it to law enforcement. The plaintiffs maintain that the whole LCM Ban—lock, stock and barrel—violates the Second Amendment as an unconstitutional restriction on gun ownership and the Fifth Amendment because it is a "taking" without just compensation by forcing "the mandatory dispossession" of previously lawful LCMs. ECF No. 12 at 4.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"A request for a preliminary injunction is a request for extraordinary relief." Cushing v. Packard, 30 F.4th 27, 35 (1st Cir. 2022). "To secure a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show '(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld, (3) a favorable balance of hardships, and (4) a fit (or lack of friction) between the injunction and the public interest.'" NuVasive, Inc. v. Day, 954 F.3d 439, 443 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 2003)). As the Court examines...