John Cassidy v. Massachusetts

Private, in home possession of firearms and the ‘core’ of The Second Amendment’s meaning post Heller and McDonald has been largely left open to the varying federal and state judicial appellate divisions and, in some cases, varying state legislation. Both sides of firearm arguments have centered on ‘presumptively lawful restrictions,’ ‘laws that impermissibly burdens The Second Amendment,’ or ‘places a substantial burden on exercise of a Second Amendment right.’ Petitioner Cassidy was convicted in Massachusetts of seven felonies for possessing two firearms, four largecapacity magazines and ammunition he lawfully purchased in Texas and kept in his off-campus residence, in a bedroom he alone occupied. Cassidy could not obtain a license prior to moving to the state and five of the items he possessed are banned in Massachusetts. The questions presented:

1. What level of scrutiny should be used in reviewing statutes that punish possession of lawfully acquired arms kept in the home?

2. What are the limits a state may impose for possessing ammunition in the home?

3. May a state ban an entire class of firearms that are commonly possessed by law abiding citizens because the firearms look like a machine gun?

4. May a state ban large-capacity magazines made within the past 20 years?

5. Must a state recognize another state’s implementation of Second Amendment rights?