Opinion
20-P-114
10-30-2020
William F. READE, Jr. v. Maura T. HEALEY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Following a hearing, a judge of the Superior Court allowed the defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint filed pro se by the plaintiff, William F. Reade, Jr. The complaint appears to allege violations of the plaintiff's constitutional rights arising out of the defendant's enforcement notice regarding the Massachusetts assault weapons ban, as well as violations of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act arising out of the defendant's alleged support of what the plaintiff refers to as "Sanctuary Cities." This appeal followed. We affirm.
The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant violated Federal criminal laws in issuing the enforcement notice.
"[S]anctuary cities" is a term that has been used to describe cities that in some way shield undocumented immigrants from Federal law enforcement. See Chicago v. Barr, 961 F.3d 882, 902-903 (7th Cir 2020).
As an initial matter, we note that the plaintiff has not made an argument that rises to the level of an appellate argument within the meaning of Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). His brief does not clearly define any issue that he seeks to present for review. Notwithstanding, we first turn to the assault weapons ban and the enforcement notice. The assault weapons ban restricts the sale, transfer, and possession of any "assault weapon," as that term has been defined by the Legislature. G. L. c. 140, § 131M. The Legislature defined "assault weapon" to include certain enumerated weapons and "copies or duplicates" of those enumerated weapons. G. L. c. 140, § 121. On July 20, 2016, the defendant issued an enforcement notice designed to "provide[ ] guidance on the identification of weapons that are ‘copies’ or ‘duplicates’ of the enumerated [a]ssault weapons that are banned under Massachusetts law." Worman v. Healey, 922 F.3d 26, 31 (1st Cir. 2019).
Notably, the plaintiff has not alleged that he has been unable to sell, transfer, or possess any specific weapon, or any other injury in fact. Whether phrased as a question of standing or whether there is an actual controversy, the plaintiff's challenge to the assault weapons ban or the enforcement notice fails as a matter of law. See Stop & Shop Cos. v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 394 Mass. 1008, 1008-1009 (1985) (no actual controversy where plaintiff was not denied permit or subject to enforcement proceeding); Commonwealth v. Jones, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 296, 301 (2013) (individual who had not applied for license to carry firearm lacked standing to challenge licensure statute). Contrast Draper v. Healey, 98 F. Supp. 3d 77, 79, 81 (D. Mass. 2015), aff'd, 827 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (consumer plaintiffs had standing to challenge regulation restricting transfers of handguns without load indicators or magazine disconnects where consumer plaintiffs had submitted evidence of attempts to purchase prohibited handguns). Nonetheless, we address the claims.
The plaintiff appears to argue that the assault weapons ban violates his Second Amendment rights. This argument has already been rejected by various courts. See Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 479 Mass. 527, 539-540 (2018) (addressing assault weapons ban). See also Worman, 922 F.3d at 41 (addressing assault weapons ban, as interpreted and enforced by defendant). The plaintiff also appears to argue that the enforcement notice violates his Second Amendment and due process rights, and raises separation of powers concerns. The enforcement notice, however, is simply an explanation regarding how the defendant intends to enforce the assault weapons ban. In the absence of any indication that the defendant brought such an enforcement action against the plaintiff, there is no actual controversy to address. See, e.g., Bunker Hill Distrib., Inc. v. District Attorney for Suffolk County, 376 Mass. 142, 144-145 (1978). "Parties are not entitled to decisions upon abstract propositions of law unrelated to some live controversy" (citation omitted). Id. at 145. There was thus no error in the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.
To the extent the defendant argues that the assault weapons ban and enforcement notice violate his constitutional rights in other respects, including by being impermissible bills of attainder, that we have not discussed them simply means that "[w]e find nothing in them that requires discussion." Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 78 (1954).
As to the defendant's alleged support of so-called sanctuary cities, the plaintiff's complaint appears to assert a claim for violations of a section of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which proscribes bringing in and harboring certain "aliens." This section, however, "is solely a penal provision and creates no private right of action." Lopez v. Arrowhead Ranches, 523 F.2d. 924, 926 (9th Cir. 1975). This claim was properly dismissed.
For the same reason, the plaintiff's arguments that the defendant violated Federal criminal laws in issuing the enforcement notice, see note 1, supra, also fail.
--------
Judgment affirmed.