9 Massachusetts opinions name it 4 courts 1997–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
District of Columbia v. Hellergreen2 sentences2025First, the Court held that the Second Amendment's prefatory clause -- i.e., "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- "announces a purpose" but "does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause." Heller, supra at 577-578 . 2025Second, with respect to the operative clause, the Court held that the term "the people" in the text of the Second Amendment "unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset." Id. at 579-580 . | 2 | 5 |
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruengreen2 sentences2025New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 , 26 (2022), quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008). “[T}he ‘textual elements’ of the Second Amendment’s operative clause—‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’—’guarantee the individual right to possess -------------------------------------------- [3] Since October 2, 2024, a separate statute (G.L. c. 140, § 131M) has generally made it illegal for anyone to possess a large capacity feeding device in public in Massachusetts, whether they have a firearm license or not. 2024In other words, “the ‘textual elements’ of the Second Amendment’s operative clause—‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’— ’guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’ ” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 20, quoting the Second Amendment and Heller, 554 U.S. at 592 . | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2025The Legislature's decision to omit such a requirement was purposeful as two of the statute's other subsections, § 59 (b) and § 59 (d), expressly refer to service lasting "30 consecutive days." See Donis v. American Waste Servs., LLC, 485 Mass. 267 , 266 (2020), quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson, 482 Mass. 830, 835 (2019) ("[T]he omission of particular language from a statute is deemed deliberate where the Legislature included [the] omitted language in related or similar statutes"). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Marzzarellagreen1 sentence2024One’s ability to have a firearm (“keep arms”) and to carry it for possible use it in case of conflict with someone else (“bear arms”) is restricted not in the slightest by whether the firearm has the serial number stamped on it by the manufacturer, or by whether someone has defaced or removed the serial number. “[A] firearm with a serial number is equally effective as a firearm without one.” United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 95 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1158 (2011), abrogated on other grounds by Bruen, supra. “With or without a serial number, a pistol is still a pistol,” | 1 | 1 |
Leahy v. Raytheon Corporationgreen1 sentence2014Twomey v. Delta Airlines Pilots Pension Plan, 328 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2003), citing Leahy v. Raytheon Co., 315 F.3d 11, 18 (1st Cir. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Twomey v. Delta Airlines Pilots Pension Plangreen1 sentence2014Twomey v. Delta Airlines Pilots Pension Plan, 328 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2003), citing Leahy v. Raytheon Co., 315 F.3d 11, 18 (1st Cir. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Holmes Realty Trust v. Granite City Storage Co.green1 sentence1999See also Hodge v. Klug, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 746, 747 (1992); Holmes Realty Trust v. Granite City Storage Co., 25 Mass. App. Ct. 272, 279 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Hodge v. Kluggreen1 sentence1999See also Hodge v. Klug, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 746, 747 (1992); Holmes Realty Trust v. Granite City Storage Co., 25 Mass. App. Ct. 272, 279 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Griffin v. United States
green
1 sentence2024One’s ability to have a firearm (“keep arms”) and to carry it for possible use it in case of conflict with someone else (“bear arms”) is restricted not in the slightest by whether the firearm has the serial number stamped on it by the manufacturer, or by whether someone has defaced or removed the serial number. “[A] firearm with a serial number is equally effective as a firearm without one.” United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 95 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1158 (2011), abrogated on other grounds by Bruen, supra. “With or without a serial number, a pistol is still a pistol,” | 1 | 2024–2024 |
School Committee v. Education Ass'n
green
1 sentence1997Within this range of cases, the operative rule seems to be that set out in Watertown Firefighters, Local 1347 v. Watertown , 376 Mass, at 714, quoted above: that the characterization of the subject matter as “compensation” or “terms or conditions of employment” will not require submis sion of the matter to the bargaining or arbitration processes if to do so “will defeat[] a declared legislative purpose.” The recent decision of School Comm. of Natick v. Education Assn. of Natick, 423 Mass. 34 (1996), is an example. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.