Opinion ID: 199885
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plaintiffs and their Challenges to the Act

Text: 21 The sixteen plaintiffs who have filed suit to enjoin enforcement of the Act may be divided into three classes. The business plaintiffs, all of whom are licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States as firearms dealers, are A.G. Guns & Ammo, Inc., Mark Cohen (d/b/a The Powderhorn), and John Doe II (a state trooper). The individual plaintiffs include an attorney, an engineering manager, parents of juveniles involved in shooting sports, software engineers, a minister, and retired Army officers (one of whom is disabled and participates in wheelchair competitive shooting). Four Massachusetts corporations are associational plaintiffs: the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) (which consists of 9,000 individuals and 200 clubs), Outdoor Message Cooperative, Inc. (which publishes a newspaper for GOAL members), the Massachusetts Sportsmen's Junior Conservation Camp, Inc. (which trains youth in outdoor skills, including shooting), and GOAL Foundation, Inc. (which promotes gun safety programs for children). 22 These businesses, individuals, and associations have challenged the constitutionality of the Act by suing the Governor and Attorney General of Massachusetts, and other officials who enforce it. Their original complaint consisted of ten counts. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to all ten counts. Appellants appeal only the dismissal of Counts 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10. The counts may be grouped as follows: 23 Vagueness Counts: Count 4 alleges that the Act's definition of a large capacity weapon is unconstitutionally vague; Count 6 alleges the same regarding the Act's definition of large capacity feeding device. The plaintiffs claim that these vague definitions leave thousands of gun owners in Massachusetts unable to determine whether they need to license their guns as large capacity weapons. Count 10 alleges that the Act's definition of furnishing weapons and ammunition to persons under 21 is also vague. 24 Freedom of Expression Count: Count I alleges that the Act's censorship of target images violates free speech and equal protection. The statute prohibits shooting at human-shaped targets or human images at Class A gun clubs. The plaintiffs believe that this regulation either is designed to curtail the expressive conduct of shooting at human images, or, even if not intended to do so, nevertheless impermissibly limits that conduct. 25 Equal Protection and Freedom of Association Count: Count 3 alleges that restricting Class A licenses to incorporated clubs with shareholders .... irrationally discriminates against incorporated clubs without shareholders and their members and violates the right to freedom of association. The plaintiffs allege that the shareholder requirement bears no rational relationship to the statute's purported aims. They also argue that the Act offends freedom of association by granting special privileges to members of stock-corporation clubs and denying such privileges to persons who are not members of such clubs and cannot obtain a Class A license.