Case Law Series Part 4 - Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island

How Bruen Became Means Testing in Rhode Island

INTRODUCTION

The United States Supreme Court told lower courts that the Second Amendment could not be balanced away by modern policy preferences. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court rejected the old practice of asking whether a gun law seemed reasonable, useful, or justified by public safety concerns. The test became text, history, and tradition.

Rhode Island’s magazine ban case shows how easily the old test can return under new wording.

OCEAN STATE TACTICAL

Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island challenges the state’s 2022 ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The law did not simply ban future sales. It banned possession. Rhode Islanders who already lawfully owned those magazines were required to surrender them, permanently modify them, remove them from the state, or transfer them out of their possession.

The plaintiffs asked the federal court to block the law while the case proceeded. Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. denied that request. The First Circuit later affirmed the denial of preliminary relief. The Supreme Court declined to take the case at that early stage, although Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have granted review.

The case is not over. After the Supreme Court denied review, the case returned to the District of Rhode Island for the merits stage. The next round has now been delayed. Plaintiffs asked the court to pause summary judgment proceedings while the Supreme Court considers two other Second Amendment cases, Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani. Judge McConnell granted the stay. The parties are now waiting for new guidance from Washington before the case moves forward again.

THE DISTRICT COURT RULING

That pause is important for Rhode Island. Ocean State Tactical is not just about magazines. It is a test of whether lower courts will actually follow Bruen, or whether they will quote Bruen and then use the same balancing analysis the Supreme Court rejected.

The weakness in the Rhode Island rulings begins with how the courts treated Heller. Heller did not say the Second Amendment protects only the minimum equipment a judge later decides is statistically necessary in a documented self defense shooting. It said the right protects arms for traditionally lawful purposes. Self defense in the home was the central example before the Court, not the outer boundary of the right.

Judge McConnell’s ruling narrowed that principle. His analysis focused heavily on whether magazines over 10 rounds were sufficiently tied to self defense, and whether Rhode Island civilians had shown a need to fire more than 10 rounds in a defensive encounter. That framing turns a broad constitutional protection into a need based inquiry.

A person does not lose constitutional protection because a judge thinks he probably does not need the item often enough.

That kind of reasoning would be unacceptable in other constitutional settings. The First Amendment does not protect only the number of words a court thinks a speaker needs. The Fourth Amendment does not disappear because police say a broader search would make the public safer. The right to vote is not limited to citizens who can prove their vote will change the election.

The Second Amendment should not depend on whether the government can convince a court that 10 rounds are enough.

THE FIRST CIRCUIT RULING

The First Circuit avoided some of the district court’s narrower reasoning by assuming, without finally deciding, that large capacity magazines are arms covered by the Second Amendment. But the appellate court still relied on a similar practical analysis. It emphasized that Rhode Islanders could still own other firearms, use smaller magazines, and possess ammunition. It also accepted the idea that the banned magazines were rarely used in self defense.

That is the same basic problem in appellate form. The question becomes whether the court thinks the citizen has enough alternatives left. That is not the Bruen test. Bruen requires the government to show that its restriction fits the historical tradition of firearm regulation. It does not ask judges to decide whether the remaining version of the right is good enough.

The state’s argument also leans heavily on public safety. Magazine bans are defended with references to mass shootings and the harm caused when criminals misuse firearms. No serious person dismisses the horror of those crimes. But constitutional analysis cannot begin and end with the government’s preferred policy outcome.

THE BRUEN PROBLEM

Bruen was written precisely because lower courts had spent years upholding gun laws through interest balancing. Courts would acknowledge the Second Amendment, weigh it against public safety claims, and uphold the restriction if the burden seemed acceptable. Bruen rejected that approach.

Ocean State Tactical shows how that rejected approach can survive. The words changed. The method did not.

The state says the burden is not severe. Citizens can use smaller magazines. They can reload. They can own other firearms. They can still defend themselves in some way. But if that is the test, every restriction becomes easier to defend.

An assault weapon ban becomes acceptable because citizens can buy another rifle. An ammunition background check becomes acceptable because citizens can still buy ammunition after approval. A training mandate becomes acceptable because citizens can still possess a firearm after completing the course. An insurance requirement becomes acceptable because citizens can still own guns if they can afford coverage. A possession ban becomes acceptable because citizens can still keep whatever the state has not yet banned.

That logic transforms a right into a managed privilege. The government narrows the right one layer at a time, then points to whatever remains as proof that nothing serious has happened.

Ocean State Tactical also matters because Rhode Island has already moved beyond the magazine ban. The state passed a 2025 ban on the future sale and transfer of certain semiautomatic firearms. The 2026 bills go further, including proposals to ban possession of those firearms, require ammunition background checks, ration firearm purchases, mandate training, impose insurance requirements, and place new operating burdens on ranges and firearm businesses.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

If the courts accept Rhode Island’s magazine ban because citizens still have smaller magazines, the same reasoning can be used again and again. The state does not need to win the full constitutional argument. It only needs courts to accept the idea that each new restriction leaves enough of the right behind.

The current stay in Ocean State Tactical shows that even the plaintiffs recognize the national legal landscape is still moving. Wolford and Hemani may clarify how lower courts are supposed to apply Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi. Those decisions are expected before the end of the Supreme Court term. After that, the Rhode Island case can restart with new guidance, new arguments, and a fuller record.

For now, Rhode Island’s magazine ban remains in force. The state won the early rounds. But early procedural victories are not the same as a final constitutional blessing.

Ocean State Tactical is still alive. The larger question is whether courts in Rhode Island will continue treating the Second Amendment as a right that can be trimmed down to whatever judges consider sufficient, or whether Bruen will be applied the way it was written.

The next article in this series will look ahead. Rhode Island may continue winning in the District Court and the First Circuit, but those local victories may rest on unstable ground if the Supreme Court decides that lower courts have been reviving the very balancing test Bruen was meant to end.

Case Law Series Part 4 – Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island