WPC\ ާ]}}GC[bI䤼n h3L컠|ILB[W6|TMτ<9-dZV/4T6,.R&=0^ ds01{4Z <eNO}YRgX{e#Bc<`8S՟KWaQВBBD=>pކV&SʃNY j=,*WtΕ]*}Opsm'K0ZA0՘k\H5p€ͬxW"XFMK܄7ܐ qաN ꄦOz "y  GmwwZH$vhk**LIΝ.t 6M̻j*;iN[˯\gKj9K+% O̜CެRkb%vcd# %i 0 Do 0( U: 0  UN UF) No U>q ^ w 4   m E f a MMM 0NMmMq 0nuNM 0DU6-U >cU*MU0MNUB 0[G BMbMMM0Mf MqMuMyM} 01 0=( 0 0>UNMk 0o 09 0 0a 0 0 09j 0 02 0[2 W 2)e)L 0Ml6p686 0:; 0; 0_}< 0 < 0k= 0Q? B*A D3BA CuA D+A 0A 0CMhD 06lD 0DE 0:N 0hN 0F9O 2OOO 2OMOOMOVOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAVAVAVAVZxZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ`p[HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2cX$ !    =%UXXdd=    0  vr Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular<\( 9Z+&Courier Regular7y,s [,r:i+003|x%UTABLE A(O$<:Default ParaXXXXXX($$  0  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial<\( 9Z+Courier <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi(3$ !    0  . d- - & cX$  =?XXdd=    1    _ X?XXXԀSee4/ O  5  http://www.state.ma.us/eops/download/large_cap.pdf6O  7 /#  (lastvisitedFeb.20,2002).#X?XX X?Ѯ#9X! XXX?http://www.state.ma.us/eops/download/large_cap.pdf0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE  cX$  =?XXdd=    2    ___Ԁ X?XXXTheSupremeCourthasheldthatafacialvaguenesschallenge  toastatutemayonlysucceediftheplaintiff"_demonstrate[s_]that x thelawisimpermissiblyvagueinallofitsapplications." @ VillageofHoffmanEstatesv._Flipside_,HoffmanEstates,Inc., X 455U.S.489,497(1982)(upholdingantidrugparaphernalia   ordinance);seealsoWhitingv.TownofWesterly,942F.2d18,21  22(1stCir.1991)(upholdingtownbanonsleepinginpublic `  place).,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS ( cX$  =?XXdd=    3    __X! XXX_Ԁ#X?X XX!#9X! XXX?#X?X X9X!# X?XXX?A"firearm"isdefinedinthestatuteas  apistol,revolverorotherweaponofanydescription,loaded h orunloaded,fromwhichashotorbulletcanbedischargedand 0 ofwhichthelengthofthebarrelorbarrelsislessthan16 H inchesor18inchesinthecaseofashotgunasoriginally  manufactured;provided,however,thatthetermfirearmshall   notincludeanyweaponthatis:(i)constructedinashape P  thatdoesnotresembleahandgun,shortbarreledrifleor  h shortbarreledshotgunincluding,butnotlimitedto,covert  0  weaponsthatresemblekeychains,pens,cigarettelightersor    cigarettepackages;or(ii)notdetectableasaweaponor p   potentialweaponbyxraymachinescommonlyusedatairports 8  orwalkthroughmetaldetectors. P  #X?XX X?S#9X! XXX?#X?X X9X!# X?XXX?Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,121#X?XX X?#9X! XXX?#X?X X9X!Q# X?XXX?.A"rifle"isaweaponhaving"a   rifledborewithabarrellengthequaltoorgreaterthan16inches X  andcapableofdischargingashotorbulletforeachpullofthe  p  trigger."Id.#X?XX X?ѓ#9X! XXX?#X?X X9X!# X?XXX?A"Shotgun"isaweaponhaving"asmoothborewith 8 abarrellengthequaltoorgreaterthan18incheswithanoverall  lengthequaltoorgreaterthan26inches,andcapableof x dischargingashotorbulletforeachpullofthetrigger."#X?XX X?#9X! XXX?#X?X X9X!| # X?XXX?Id.#X?XX X? #9X! XXX?Document0zzSDUNumber16 [ cX$  =?XXdd=    9    __ X?XXX_ԀThestate'sinterestinregulatingClassAlicensedclubs  alsoanswerstheplaintiffs'equalprotectionchallengetothis x restrictiononhumantargetshooting.Theplaintiffsarguethat @ "theprovision...deniestheequalprotectionofthelaws,in X violationoftheFourteenthAmendment,bytreatingpersonswhoare   inidenticalcircumstancesdissimilarly.Everyoneelseinthe  Commonwealthisentitledtoshootatsuchimagesexceptthose `  shootingataclubwithaClassAlicense."However,theEqual ( x ProtectionClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment"embodiesageneral  @ rulethatStatesmusttreatlikecasesalikebutmaytreatunlike    casesaccordingly."_Vacco_v.Quill,521U.S.793,799(1997)    (citationsomitted).GiventhatonlyClassAclubscanpermit H   personsgenerallyunauthorizedtouselargecapacityweaponstouse `   suchweaponsontheirpremises,itisreasonablethatthestate's  restrictiononshootingathumanshapedtargetsonlyappliesto x them.#X?XX X?Ѿ#9X! XXX? B cX$  =?XXdd=    6    __ X?XXX_ԀTheplaintiffsciteonlyonecaseinwhichafacial  challengetoastatelicensingschemeforgunshasbeenheldripe. x CoalitionofNewJerseySportsmen,Inc.v.Whitman,44F.Supp.2d @ 666,673n.10(_D.N.J._Ԁ1999).Althoughthiscaseultimately X repudiatedthetypeofchallengetheyproposehere,theplaintiffs   relyuponitbecauseofits_justiciability_Ԁholding.Again,the  caseisdistinguishable.TheNewJerseylawexaminedinCoalition `  waseffectivelyabanonassaultweapons.Asanearlierdecision ( x evaluatingtheNewJerseylawstated,"theprohibitionisdefacto  @ [becauseofthe]....extremelyrigorousqualificationprocess    requiredforreceivingalicense."CoalitionofNewJersey    Sportsmenv.Florio , 744_F.Supp_.602,608(_D.N.J._Ԁ1990).The H   plaintiffshaveneverallegedthattheMassachusettslicensing 8  processamountstoadefactoban.#X?XX X?Ѿ#9X! XXX? h  . cX$  =?XXdd=    5    ___Ԁ X?XXXIn_Nat'l_ԀRifleAssoc.v._Magaw_132F.3d272(6thCir.1997)  thesamecourtruledthatthefacialchallenge#X?XX X?#9X! XXX?#X?X X9X!# X?XXX?Ԁofcertaingun x manufacturerstothefederalCrimeControlActof1994wasripe @ becauseoftheeconomicharmssufferedbybusinesseswhichsold X guns.LiketheColumbusordinance,theCrimeControl#X?XX X?#9X! XXX?#X?X X9X!`# X?XXX?ԀActalso   lackedalicensingscheme,making_Magaw_distinguishableforthe  samereasons#X?XX X?Ѣ#9X! XXX?#X?X X9X!# X?XXX?.#X?XX X?#9X! XXX?Ԁ42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of ITU4$ ** ddI  B    ? %2A`Arial?9VU*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d dSSSS'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForITU4$** ddI  B    ? %2A`Arial?9VU*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  cX$  =?XXdd=    10    ݀ X?XXXThestatutereadsasfollows:  Thecolonelofstatepolicemay,afteraninvestigation,grant @ aClassAlicensetoacluborfacilitywithanonsite X shootingrangeorgallery,whichclubisincorporatedunder   thelawsofthecommonwealthforthepossession,storageand  useoflargecapacityweapons,ammunitionthereforandlarge `  capacityfeedingdevicesforusewithsuchweaponsonthe ( x premisesofsuchclub;provided,however,thatnotlessthan  @ oneshareholderofsuchclubshallbequalifiedandsuitable    tobeissuedsuchlicense;andprovidedfurther,thatsuch    largecapacityweaponsandammunitionfeedingdevicesmaybe H   usedundersuchClassAclublicenseonlybysuchmembersthat `  possessavalidfirearmidentificationcardissuedunder (  section129BoravalidClassAorClassBlicensetocarry   firearms,orbysuchotherpersonsthattheclubpermitswhile h  underthedirectsupervisionofacertifiedfirearmssafety 0  instructororclubmemberwho,inthecaseofalargecapacity H  firearm,possessesavalidClassAlicensetocarryfirearms  or,inthecaseofalargecapacityrifleorshotgun,  possessesavalidClassAorClassBlicensetocarry P firearms.Suchclubshallnotpermitshootingattargetsthat h depicthumanfigures,humaneffigies,humansilhouettesorany 0 humanimagesthereof,exceptbypublicsafetypersonnel  performinginlinewiththeirofficialduties. @  @  @  @  p X! XX X? X?X XX!Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,131(a). @ 9X! XX X?42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  Document1zzSDUNumber21Document0zzSDUNumber27 L cX$  =?XXdd=    8    __ X?XXX_Ԁ"Nothinginthissection...shallbeconstruedto  prohibitaparentorguardianfromallowinghischildorward,who x hasnotattainedagefifteen,thesuperviseduseofarifleor @ shotgunorammunitiontherefor...norfromfurnishingsuchchild X orward,whohasattainedagefifteen,witharifleorshotgunthat   isnotalargecapacityweaponorammunition;provided,however,  thatsaidchildorward,beingfifteenyearsofageorolder,has `  beenissuedavalidfirearmidentificationcard....Nothingin ( x thissectionshallbeconstruedtoprohibitaninstructorfrom  @ furnishingriflesorshotgunsorammunitiontherefortopupils;    provided,however#X?XX X?Ѿ#9X! XXX?#X?X X9X!n# X?XXX?,thatsaidinstructorhastheconsentofaparent    orguardianofapupilundertheageofeighteenyears.#X?XX X?Ѱ#9X! XXX?"#X?X X9X!p# X?XXX?Mass.Gen. H   Lawsch.140,130#X?XX X?ѵ#9X! XXX?.  cX$  =?XXdd=    7    ___Ԁ X?XXXAccordingtothestatute,the"secretarymayamendthe  rosteruponhisowninitiativeorwiththeadviceof[theGun x ControlAdvisory]board.Apersonmaypetitionthesecretaryto @ placeaweaponon,orremoveaweaponfrom,theroster."Mass. X Gen.Lawsch.140,1313/4.Thesecretaryissuedanupdated   versionoftherosterasrecentlyasFebruary15,2002.See  ExecutiveOfficeofPublicSafety,LargeCapacityWeaponRoster `  EffectiveFebruary15,2002,availableat ( x 4| O  5  http://www.state.ma.us/chsb/download/frb/largecap_2002.pdf.6sO   7 X Ԁ#X?XX X?#9X! XXX?  e http://www.state.ma.us/chsb/download/frb/largecap_2002.pdf. V cX$  =?XXdd=    4    ___Ԁ X?XXXSeeAlexander_Bickel_,TheLeastDangerousBranch111(1962). !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !Xj!XXXXXj!     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealst  FortheFirstCircuit &DtXX&D  A') ` dE< ` A   No.002357 K   X?XXX  @@ GUNOWNERS'ACTIONLEAGUE,INC.;OUTDOORMESSAGECOOPERATIVE,  G  INC.;MASSACHUSETTSSPORTSMEN'SJUNIORCONSERVATIONCAMPINC.;    A.G.GUNS&AMMO,INC.;MARKCOHEN;JOHNDOEII;JAMESF.   _GETTENS_;DANAH._CROWE_;LORI_CROWE_;BRIANE.DUNN;JOHNP. O  _HEARSON_;TOM_LAROCHE_;ANND._LAROCHE_;ROBERTL.WALTER;JOHNDOE g  I;GOALFOUNDATION,INC.,#XXX X?K# /  j@Plaintiffs,Appellants, }  @tt)v. )y  X?XXX  JANESWIFT,ActingGovernor,CommonwealthofMassachusetts; % THOMASF.REILLY,AttorneyGeneral,Commonwealthof  Massachusetts;JOHN_DIFAVA_,Colonel,MassachusettsStatePolice; e MARTHA_COAKLEY_,DistrictAttorney,MiddlesexCounty,MA;EDWARD -} DAVIS,Superintendent,PoliceDepartment,Lowell,MA,#XXX X?Ѭ# E @Defendants,Appellees.  A') ` dE<>` A ?   @@ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOF $t MASSACHUSETTS J @@*[Hon.George_O'Toole_,U.S.DistrictJudge] ! A') ` dE<Q!` A R!# @@'Before 7"% @@((_Torruella_Ԁand_Lipez_,CircuitJudges, #3' and_Zobel_,*DistrictJudge. $ ( A') ` dE<:'` A ;'"+       StephenP._Halbrook_,withwhomEdwardF.George,Jr.wason  (p#- briefforappellants. (F$.   EdwardJ._DeAngelo_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,withwhom )%/ ThomasF.Reilly,AttorneyGeneralofMassachusetts,andAdam *%0 Simms,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,wereonbriefforappellees. x+&1   A') ` dE- ` A -J)4   *OftheDistrictofMassachusetts,sittingbydesignation. .U)5?L _ԇ  EdwardL.MorrisonbriefforappelleeEdwardDavis.    MichaelParis,BenjaminS.Albert,RandallE.Ravitz,and  BrownRudnickFreed&Gesmer,onconsolidatedbriefforTheCenter \ toPreventHandgunViolence,theInternationalBrotherhoodof 2 PoliceOfficers,theAmericanAcademyofChildandAdolescent X Psychiatry,theAmericanAssociationofSuicidology,theAmerican . MedicalStudentAssociation,theAmericanPublicHealth   Association,theMassachusettsBrainInjuryAssociation,andStop   HandgunViolence,Inc.,amicicuriae. `  *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   \  \ K  SIp   `;@37339`;@SMarch25,2002 F   RHCl " `;@37339 `;@ R(p   (  * !  +'0  X?XXX"X?XX X?   8%?%XXdXXd8)*,X` XX*{WK      ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .Thiscaserequiresustoconsider  theconstitutionalityof"AnActRelativetoGunControlinthe  Commonwealth,"alawthatplacednewrestrictionsonguns  p classifiedas"LargeCapacityWeapons,"andincreasedthepenalties   forunlicensedpossession.1998Mass.Actsch.180,180 @  (codifiedinMass.Gen.Lawsch.140etseq.)("Act").Plaintiffs    allegethattheActisunconstitutionalbecauseofthevaguenessof `  importantdefinitionswithintheAct.Theyallegethesame @  infirmityinarelatedfurnishingstatute.Theyalsoassertthat   theAct'sregulationofcertaingunclubsviolatestheirrightsto ` freedomofexpression,equalprotectionandfreedomofassociation.  InresponsetotheCommonwealth'smotiontodismiss,thedistrict 0 courtdismissedallofthecounts.Weaffirm.   I.Background  P  A.ProvisionsoftheAct  0 6,XX X,X` X6  Giventhefacialchallengetothe1998guncontrollaw,we ` mustdescribethelawinsomedetail.    1.Licensingof"LargeCapacityWeapons"  0 "   OwnersoffirearmsintheCommonwealthofMassachusettshave "`$ longneededtolicensetheseweapons.See1906Mass.Acts172 #& (requiringlicenseforcarryingloadedpistol).BeforetheAct 0% ( wentintoeffect,atwotieredlicensingsystemprevailed,basedon &"* thecategoriesof(1)riflesandshotgunsand(2)"firearms," P(#, includingpistols,revolvers,andothergunswithshortbarrels. )0%. Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,121(1997).Acitizenwithalicense p+&0 {W {e {  couldpossessalltheseweapons,whileacitizenwithaFirearms  IdentificationCard("FIDCard")couldonlypossessriflesand @ shotguns.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,121,129C,131etseq.   (1997). `    TheActcreatedathreetieredlicensingsystembydevisinga  @ newclassificationforlargecapacityweapons.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.    140,121.AClassAlicenseentitlesitspossessortoownany `  typeofweapon,includingalargecapacityweapon.Mass.Gen.Laws   ch.140,131(a).ApersonwithaClassBlicensecanpossess 0  onlyweapons,betheyrifles,shotguns,orfirearms,thatarenot  largecapacityweapons.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,131(b).A P personwithanFIDCardhasthesamerightsassomeonewithaClass 0 Blicenseexceptthatheorshecannotcarryfirearms.Mass.Gen. p Lawsch.140,129C.Again,firearmsarepistols,revolvers,and P gunswithshortbarrels.Id.    TheActdefinesa"largecapacityweapon"as"anyfirearm,  p rifleorshotgun:   Ҁ(i)thatissemiautomaticwithafixedlargecapacityfeeding  X# device;(ii)thatissemiautomaticandcapableofaccepting,  $ orreadilymodifiabletoaccept,anydetachablelargecapacity !% feedingdevice;(iii)thatemploysarotatingcylinder `"& capableofacceptingmorethantenroundsofammunitionina (#x' rifleorfirearmandmorethanfiveshotgunshellsinthecase #@( ofashotgunorfirearm;or(iv)thatisanassaultweapon. $ ) y#Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,121.A"largecapacityfeedingdevice" H&!+ is: '(#- %(i)afixedordetachablemagazine,box,drum,feedstripor 0*%0 similardevicecapableofaccepting,orthatcanbereadily *H&1 convertedtoaccept,morethantenroundsofammunitionor +'2 morethanfiveshotgunshells;or(ii)alargecapacity ,'3 ammunitionfeedingdeviceasdefinedinthefederalPublic  SafetyandRecreationalFirearmsUseProtectionAct,18 x U.S.C.921(a)(31). @ l&Id.(Thestatutealsoexcludescertainweaponsfromthedefinition   oflargecapacityweapons:( `  Theterm"largecapacityweapon"shallbeasecondary  @ designationandshallapplytoaweaponinadditiontoits    primarydesignationasafirearm,rifleorshotgunandshall    notinclude:(i)anyweaponthatwasmanufacturedinorprior H   totheyear1899;(ii)anyweaponthatoperatesbymanual `  bolt,pump,leverorslideaction;(iii)anyweaponthatis (  asingleshotweapon;(iv)anyweaponthathasbeenmodified   soastorenderitpermanentlyinoperableorotherwise h  renderedpermanentlyunabletobedesignatedalargecapacity 0  weapon;or(v)anyweaponthatisanantiqueorrelic, H  theatricalproporotherweaponthatisnotcapableoffiring  aprojectileandwhichisnotintendedforuseasafunctional  weaponandcannotbereadilymodifiedthroughacombinationof P availablepartsintoanoperablelargecapacityweapon. h n)Id.-   2.TheRosterofLargeCapacityWeapons `    Toensurethatitsprohibitionsareclarifiedasneeded,the h ActprovidesthattheSecretaryoftheExecutiveOfficeofPublic  Safety("Secretary")shallpublishanddistributea"roster"of 8 weaponswhichfitthestatutorydefinitionof"largecapacity ! weapons."Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,1313/4.TheSecretaryhas X # compiledandpublishedtheroster.Therosterispresently !8% availableonthewebsiteoftheExecutiveOfficeofPublic x#' Safety.- #  1      ׀ThefirstrosterwasissuedonOctober14,1998,oneweek %X )  beforetheeffectivedateoftheAct. &!+   Therosterisnotintendedasanexhaustivelistofweapons   deemed"largecapacity"underthetermsoftheAct,butitdoes @ listdozensofweaponsconsidered"largecapacityweapons"under   theAct.ExecutiveOfficeofPublicSafety,LargeCapacityWeapon `  RosterEffectiveFebruary15,2002.TheSecretaryalsoprefaced  @ therosterwithclarificationsofsomeelementsofthestatutory    definitionoflargecapacityweapons,includingtheterms"capable `  ofaccepting"and"readilymodifiabletoaccept"alargecapacity   feedingdevice.Id. 0  w.A 3.TheLicensingProcess     AnyoneseekingaClassAorBlicensemayapplyeithertothe  localchiefofpoliceortheColoneloftheStatePolice.Mass. 0 Gen.Lawsch.140,131(d).Thelicensingauthoritymayissuethe  licenseif1)theapplicantisnotautomaticallydisqualifiedby P reasonslistedinthestatute(suchaspriorconvictionofcertain 0 crimes)and2)thelicensingauthoritydeterminesthatthe p applicantisa"suitableperson"andhasreasonforthelicense. P  Id.ApersonseekinganFIDcardmayapplytothelocalchiefof " police.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,129B.Thechiefofpolicemust  !p$ issuethelicenseunlessalistedreasondisqualifiesthe "& applicant.Id.AnyonedeniedeitheraClassAorBlicenseoran @$( FIDcardmaychallengethatdenialinthecourtsofthe % !* Commonwealth.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,129B(5),131(f). `'",  4.CriminalProvisions  (@$.   BothbeforeandaftertheAct,anyonewho"knowingly" * &0 possessedweaponswithoutproperstatelicensingcouldbepunished `,'2 byimprisonment.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.260,10(a)(1997).TheAct  providedforaspecifictermofpunishmentforknowingunlicensed @ possessionofalargecapacityweapon:betweentwoandahalfand   tenyearsinprison.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.269,10(m).TheAct `  alsoincreasedexistingpenaltiesforfirearmsdealerswhosell  @ weaponstopersonswhodonothavethelicensenecessarytopossess    suchweapons.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.269,10F. `    TheActalsoamendedexistingrestrictionsonthesellingor   furnishingofweaponstopersonsunderacertainage. 0  Massachusettslawprohibitssellingorfurnishingarifleor  shotguntoanyoneundertheageof18,andprohibitssellingor P furnishingafirearmorlargecapacityweapontoanyoneunder21 0 yearsofage.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,130.TheActupdatedthe p furnishingstatutesothatitwouldreflectthenewthreetier P licensingscheme.Id.Italsoincreasedthepenaltiesforselling  orfurnishingsuchweaponstounderageindividuals.Id.4   p 5.ClassALicensedGunClubs      Likeindividuals,organizations(suchasgunclubs)canalso " possessweapons.Thereisnostatutoryrequirementthatagunclub  !p$ notusinglargecapacityweaponsobtainalicense.However,agun "& clubwhichpossessesandstoreslargecapacityweaponsmustobtain @$( aClassAlicense.AccordingtotheAct,agunclubwithaClass % !* Alicensecanpossess,store,anduselargecapacityweapons. `'", Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,131(a).AmemberofaClassAlicensed (@$. gunclubmayuselargecapacityweapons,evenifthememberdoes *%0 notpossessaClassAlicense,providedthatthememberhasat ,`'2 leastaClassBlicenseoranFIDcard.Id.AClassAlicensed  gunclubcanpermitnonmemberswithoutalicenseoranFIDcardto @ uselargecapacityweapons,providedthatsuchnonmembersfire   underthesupervisionofacertifiedfirearmssafetyinstructoror `  aproperlylicensedclubmember.Id.?   @   Gunclubswhichwanttopossessandstorelargecapacity    weaponsmustapplytotheColoneloftheStatePoliceinorderto `  obtainaClassAlicense.Id.Accordingtothestatute,"[t]he   colonelofstatepolicemay,afteraninvestigation,grantaClass 0  Alicensetoacluborfacilitywithanonsiteshootingrangeor  gallery...provided,however,thatnotlessthanoneshareholder P ofsuchclubshallbequalifiedandsuitabletobeissuedsuch 0 license." Id. p   TheActalsoregulatestargetshootingatClassAlicensed P clubs.Plaintiffschallengearegulationpreventingsuchgunclubs  frompermitting "shootingattargetsthatdepicthumanfigures,  p humaneffigies,humansilhouettesoranyhumanimagesthereof,   exceptbypublicsafetypersonnelperforminginlinewiththeir @" officialduties."Id.Apersonlawfullylicensedandshootingin  $ aplacewhereitislawfultofireweapons(otherthanaClassA `"& licensedclub)mayshootatatargetdepictingahumanfigure. #@( D :B.ThePlaintiffsandtheirChallengestotheAct  % *   Thesixteenplaintiffswhohavefiledsuittoenjoin `'", enforcementoftheActmaybedividedintothreeclasses.The (@$. businessplaintiffs,allofwhomarelicensedbytheCommonwealth *%0 ofMassachusettsandtheUnitedStatesasfirearmsdealers,are ,`'2 A.G.Guns&Ammo,Inc.,MarkCohen(d/b/aThePowderhorn),andJohn  DoeII(astatetrooper).Theindividualplaintiffsincludean @ attorney,anengineeringmanager,parentsofjuvenilesinvolvedin   shootingsports,softwareengineers,aminister,andretiredArmy `  officers(oneofwhomisdisabledandparticipatesinwheelchair  @ competitiveshooting).FourMassachusettscorporationsare    associationalplaintiffs:theGunOwnersActionLeague("GOAL") `  (whichconsistsof9,000individualsand200clubs),Outdoor   MessageCooperative,Inc.(whichpublishesanewspaperforGOAL 0  members),theMasachusettsSportsmen'sJuniorConservationCamp,  Inc.(whichtrainsyouthinoutdoorskills,includingshooting), P andGOALFoundation,Inc.(whichpromotesgunsafetyprogramsfor 0 children). p   Thesebusinesses,individuals,andassociationshave P challengedtheconstitutionalityoftheActbysuingtheGovernor  andAttorneyGeneralofMassachusetts,andotherofficialswho  p enforceit.Theiroriginalcomplaintconsistedoftencounts.The   districtcourtgrantedthedefendants'motiontodismisswith @" respecttoalltencounts.Appellantsappealonlythedismissalof  $ Counts1,3,4,6,and10.Thecountsmaybegroupedasfollows: `"&   NJ VaguenessCounts: Count4allegesthattheAct'sdefinitionof #@( alargecapacityweaponisunconstitutionallyvague;Count6 % !* allegesthesameregardingtheAct'sdefinitionoflargecapacity `'", feedingdevice.Theplaintiffsclaimthatthesevaguedefinitions (@$. leavethousandsofgunownersinMassachusettsunabletodetermine *%0 whethertheyneedtolicensetheirgunsaslargecapacityweapons. ,`'2 Count10allegesthattheAct'sdefinitionof"furnishing"weapons  andammunitiontopersonsunder21isalsovague. @    FreedomofExpressionCount: Count1allegesthattheAct's   "censorshipoftargetimagesviolatesfreespeechandequal   protection."Thestatuteprohibitsshootingathumanshaped @  targetsorhumanimagesatClassAgunclubs.Theplaintiffs    believethatthisregulationeitherisdesignedtocurtailthe `  expressiveconductofshootingathumanimages,or,evenifnot @  intendedtodoso,neverthelessimpermissiblylimitsthatconduct.      EqualProtectionandFreedomofAssociationCount: Count3 ` allegesthatrestrictingClassAlicensesto"incorporatedclubs @ withshareholders....irrationallydiscriminatesagainst  incorporatedclubswithoutshareholdersandtheirmembersand ` violatestherighttofreedomofassociation."Theplaintiffs  allegethattheshareholderrequirementbearsnorational 0 relationshiptothestatute'spurportedaims.Theyalsoarguethat  the"Actoffendsfreedomofassociationbygrantingspecial P  privilegestomembersofstockcorporationclubsanddenyingsuch 0" privilegestopersonswhoarenotmembersofsuchclubsandcannot p!$ obtainaClassAlicense." #P& R C.TheDecisionBelow $(    TheDistrictCourtdismissedappellants'vaguenesschallenge H&!* onripenessgrounds,findingthat"noneoftheseclaimsisripeas '(#, toanyoftheplaintiffs."Thecourtaddedthat,evenifripe,the h)$. vaguenesschallengeswerenot"meritorious"because"the *H&0 definitionsforthepurposesoftheAct'slicensingrequirementsdo ,'2 notregulateorlimitconstitutionallyprotectedconduct....  [andare]notimpermissiblyvagueinallapplications."D #  2      ׀The @ districtcourtdismissedthefreedomofexpressionclaim(Count1)   onthegroundthattheActregulatedconduct,notspeech.Italso `  summarilydismissedthefreedomofassociationclaim(Count3)"for  @ thereasonsthedefendantshavepointedout;"namely,thatgun    clubsdonotneedtoobtainClassAlicensesandthatClassA `  licensesdonotrequiretheirpossessorstoespouseanyviewpoint.     "Wewillaffirmthedismissalofthecomplaintif,andonly 0  if,acceptingallwell-pleadedfactsastrueanddrawingall  reasonableinferencesinfavoroftheplaintiff,thecomplaint P 'fail[s]tostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.'" 0 CloroxCo.PuertoRicov.Proctor&GambleCommercialCo.,228F.3d p 24,30(1stCir.2000)(quotingFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6)). P Therefore,"thecomplaintisproperlydismissedonlywhenthe  allegationsaresuchthat'theplaintiffcanprovenosetoffacts  p tosupport[the]claimforrelief.'"Id.(quotingRockwellv.Cape   CodHosp.,26F.3d254,260(1stCir.1994)).Wereviewbeloweach @" elementofthedismissal,consideringthevaguenesschallengesin  $ PartII,theFirstAmendmentchallengetotheprohibitionon `"& shootingathumanshapedtargetsinPartIII,theequalprotection #@( K  K hX K  challengetothelicensesforClassAgunclubsandfacilitiesin  PartIV,andthefreedomofassociationclaiminPartV.  @  II.Vagueness      Inappealingthedismissalofthevaguenesscounts(Counts4,   6,10),theappellantsarguethattheycannotdeterminewhether @  theyownthetypesofweaponsregulatedbytheAct,puttingthemat    riskofaviolationofacriminallaw.Hence,theyclaimthatthe `  statutoryprohibitionsonowninglargecapacityweaponsand @  furnishingweaponstopersonsunder21arefacially   unconstitutional. g[d ` -X5%,XX X-  Thefirststatutorydefinitionofalargecapacityweaponis  "anyfirearm,rifleorshotgun:(i)thatissemiautomaticwitha 0 fixedlargecapacityfeedingdevice."F #  3      ׀Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,  121.TheActfurtherdefinesa"largecapacityfeedingdevice" P toincludeamagazineorsimilardevice"capableofaccepting,or  thatcanbereadilyconvertedtoaccept,morethantenroundsof @ ammunitionormorethanfiveshotgunshells."Id.Accordingto   theircomplaint,"[s]everalplaintiffs...possesssemiautomatics `  withfixedtubularfeedingdevicesthatacceptnomorethan10  @ roundsoftheammunitiontheypossessornomorethanfiveofthe    shotgunshellstheypossess.However,suchpersonshavenowayof `  knowingifthesefeedingdeviceswillacceptmoreroundsorshells   ofshorterlengths."Inotherwords,theplaintiffscomplainthat 0  theycannotdeterminethescopeofthedefinitionwithout  ascertaining(andcontinuingtoascertain)theexactdimensionsof P availableammunition. 0   Thesecondstatutorydefinitionoflargecapacityweapon p includesanyweapon"thatissemiautomaticandcapableof P accepting,orreadilymodifiabletoaccept,anydetachablelarge  capacityfeedingdevice."Id.Accordingtotheplaintiffsg:  p  XTheterm"capableofaccepting"afeedingdevicethatwill   acceptmorethantenroundscouldbeinterepretedatleast x! fiveways:(1)theownermustactuallypossesssuchadevice; @" (2)theownerdoesnotpossessthedevice,buttheweaponas  X# manufacturedandsoldincludedsuchadevice;(3)sucha  $ deviceisnotpossessedbutisavailableintheordinary !% channelsofcommerce;(4)suchadeviceisnotavailablebut `"& someoneontheplanethasmadeatleastone;or(5)nosuch (#x' devicehaseverbeenmade,butwouldfittheweaponifit #@( existedandwaspossessedbytheowner. $ )  XoTheplaintiffsarguethattheycouldonlycomplywiththestatute H&!+ ifitmadeclearwhichofthesefiveinterpretationsiscorrect.?r  '(#-  ,'2 A.RipenessDoctrine     Whencitizenscannotdeterminewhatconductalawproscribes, h thelaw'svaguenessmayraiseconstitutionaldueprocessconcerns. H "Theconstitutionalrequirementofdefinitenessisviolatedbya   criminalstatutethatfailstogiveapersonofordinary  h intelligencefairnoticethathiscontemplatedconductisforbidden    bythestatute."UnitedStatesv.Harriss,347U.S.612,617 8  (1954).Theprincipleunderlyingthedoctrineisthat"noman h  shallbeheldcriminallyresponsibleforconductwhichhecouldnot   reasonablyunderstandtobeproscribed."Id. 8   AllegingthattheActisunconstitutionallyvague,the  plaintiffscomplainaboutthethreatofenforcement,butnotany X particularinstancesofenforcement.Suchfacialchallengesraise 8 specialjusticiabilityconcerns.Particularlyrelevanthereisthe x doctrineofripeness,which"askswhetheraninjurythathasnot X yethappenedissufficientlylikelytohappen"towarrantjudicial  review.13ACharlesAlanWright,ArthurR.Miller,andEdwardH. (x  Cooper,FederalPracticeandProcedure,3531.12,at50(2ded. " 1984)(citingWarthv.Seldin,422U.S.490,499n.10(1975) H!$ (definingripenessinquiryas"whethertheharmassertedhas "(& maturedsufficientlytowarrantjudicialintervention.")).The h$( requirementofripenessis"particularlyrelevantinthecontextof %H!* actionsforpreenforcementreviewofstatutes,"becauseit"focuses '", onthetimingoftheaction."Navegar,Inc.v.UnitedStates,103 )h$.  F.3d994,998(D.C.Cir.1997). *%0   Indeterminingripeness,weapplyafamiliartest:"'the   questionineachcaseiswhether...thereisasubstantial @ controversy,betweenpartieshavingadverselegalinterests,of   sufficientimmediacyandrealitytowarranttheissuanceofa `  declaratoryjudgment.'"LakeCarriers'Assn.v.MacMullan,406  @ U.S.498,506(1972)(quotingE.` hp x (#X5%E4  4}  SMarylandCasualtyCo.v.PacificCoal    &OilCo.,312U.S.270,273(1941)).Thereareseveralimportant `  reasonsforacourttoexercisethe"passivevirtue" #  4      ׀ofwaiting   foracontroversytomaturebeforepassingjudgmentonthemerits:]s4}}݌ 0  Ќ  0  [C]ourtsshouldnotrenderdecisionsabsentagenuineneedto f resolvearealdispute.Unnecessarydecisionsdissipate .~ judicialenergiesbetterconservedforlitigantswhohavea F realneedforofficialassistance....Defendants,moreover,  shouldnotbeforcedtobeartheburdensoflitigationwithout  substantialjustification,andinanyeventmayfind N themselvesunabletolitigateintelligentlyiftheyareforced f tograpplewithhypotheticalpossibilitiesratherthan . immediatefacts.(#(# Wright,Miller,andCooper,3532.1,at1145;seealsoUnited , Statesv.Hilton,167F.3d61(1stCir.1999)(decliningto l entertainoverbreadthchallengetotheChildOnlinePrivacy L  ProtectionActforsimilarreasons).Theseconcernsoftenmilitate  " againstpreenforcementreview. "l$   Nevertheless,threatsofenforcementofavaguestatutecan #O& supportafacialchallengetoastatutewhencertainconditionsare % ( met."'[O]nedoesnothavetoawaittheconsummationofthreatened 'o"* injurytoobtainpreventiverelief.Iftheinjuryiscertainly (#, impendingthatisenough.'"Babbittv.UnitedFarmWorkersNat'l ?*%. Union,442U.S.289,298(1979)(quotingPennsylvaniav.West  Virginia,262U.S.553,593(1923));seealsoWright,Miller&  Cooper,3532.5,at183(explainingthattheopportunitytooffer  p aconstitutionaldefenseatacriminalproceeding"simplyisnotan   adequateremedy.").Todeterminewhetherthethreatofenforcement @  ofanallegedlyvaguestatuteisripeforjudicialreview,we    examine"thefitnessoftheissuesforjudicialdecisionandthe `  hardshiptothepartiesofwithholdingcourtconsideration." @  AbbottLabs.v.Gardner,387U.S.136,149(1967)."[F]itness   typicallyinvolvessubsidiaryqueriesconcerningfinality, ` definiteness,andtheextenttowhichresolutionofthechallenge  dependsuponfactsthatmaynotyetbesufficientlydeveloped, 0 whereashardshiptypicallyturnsuponwhetherthechallengedaction  createsadirectandimmediatedilemmafortheparties."Rhode P IslandAssnofRealtors,Inc.,v.Whitehouse,199F.3d26,33(1st 0 Cir.1999)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Weturntothese p hardshipandfitnessconsiderations. P   1.Hardship  3" ً {-, X5%X-  Inallofthevaguenesscounts,themainhardshipallegedby "f$ theplaintiffsisthethreatofprosecution.Athreatened #& prosecutionisonlyimmediateenoughtosatisfythehardshipprong 6% ( oftheripenessinquirywhen"thechallengedactioncreatesa &"* 'directandimmediate'dilemmafortheparties."W.R.Grace&Co. V(#, v.UnitedStatesEnvtl.Prot.Agency,959F.2d360,364(1stCir., )6%. 1992)(quotingAbbottLabs.,387U.S.at152(1967)).Sucha v+&0 dilemmaexistswhenthreatenedprosecutionputsthepartyseeking  preenforcementreview"betweenarockandahardplaceabsentthe @ availabilityofpreenforcementreview,shemusteither% G %Gforego   possiblylawfulactivitybecauseofherwellfoundedfearof `  prosecution,orwillfullyviolatethestatute,therebysubjecting  @ herselftocriminalprosecutionandpunishment."Navegar,    103F.3dat998(citingBabbitt,442U.S.at29899).The `  plaintiffsallegethattheyfacesuchadilemmabecausetheymust   choosebetweencostlycompliance(givinguppossessionofallguns 0  thatmightbelargecapacityweapons)orriskynoncompliance  (keepingtheirgunsandworryingaboutprosecutionforpossessing P largecapacityweapons). 0   ThatargumentmighthavesomeforceiftheActbannedlarge  capacityweaponsoutrightinsteadoflicensingthem.Forexample, S inPeople'sRightsOrganization,Inc.v.CityofColumbus,152F.3d 3 522(6thCir.1998),wheretheplaintiffschallengedsuccesfullyon s vaguenessgroundsamunicipalordinancebanningassaultweapons, S  thepreenforcementchallengewasripeforreviewbecausethelaw " presentedthoseplaintiffswitha"Hobson'schoice[:]K+ 4 <DL!, X5%K[t]hey #!s$ [could]eitherpossesstheirfirearmsinColumbusandrisk "& prosecutionundertheCity'slaw,or,alternatively,they[could] C$(  storetheirweaponsoutsidetheCity,deprivingthemselvesofthe %#!* useand% c %cpossessionoftheweapons."L #  5      ׀People'sRightsOrg.,152   F.3dat529(holdingthatcityordinance'sbanonassaultweapons @ wasvaguebecausetheordinancelackedascienterrequirementand   itsdefinitionsofassaultweapons,interalia,unfairlyrequired `  gunconsumerstoascertainthedevelopmentalhistoryofparticular @  weaponsormonitortheprecisetypesofammunitionavailablefor    theirweapons).Here,theplaintiffshaveathirdoption: `  obtainingalicensefortheirweapons.I0 #  6       @    Confrontedwiththislicensingargument,theplaintiffs #  respondthattheydonotknowwhethertheyneedalicense. c However,wehavelongheldthatallownersoffirearmsareon C noticethattheyaresubjecttoregulation,includinglicensing.  SeeUnitedStatesv.DeBartolo,482F.2d312,316(1stCir.1973) c (internalquotationmarksomitted)(rejectingaguntransferor's  dueprocesschallengetoaconvictionfortransferringagun  withoutalicensebecause"where,ashere...dangerousor @ deleteriousdevices...areinvolved,theprobabilityof   regulationissogreatthatanyonewhoisawarethatheisin `  possessionofthemordealingwiththemmustbepresumedtobe  @ awareoftheregulation").Here,theregulationoflargecapacity    weaponsprovidesaprocessforresolvinguncertaintyaboutthe `  scopeoftheregulationtheapplicationforalicense.T-he   hardshipallegedbytheplaintiffsbeingforcedtodisposeof 0  possiblylawfulweaponsorriskingprosecutionunderthestatute  dissolvesinlightofthatlicensingoption.  P 2.Fitness  3   Thefitnesscomponentofripenessaddresseswhetherthe v factualandlegaldimensionsofthechallengetotheActare V developedenoughtopermitadjudicationoftheplaintiffs'claim.  TheActempowersanagencyoftheCommonwealththeExecutive &v OfficeofPublicSafety("EOPS")topromulgateregulations  clarifyingitsmeaningandtopublishalistofweaponsproscribed F! bythestatute.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,1313/4.Thestatute  &# chargestheEOPStopublicizetheseclarificationswidely: f"% ?+ 4 <DL!X?Thesecretaryshall,notlessthanthreetimesannually, I$' publishtherosterinnewspapersofgeneralcirculation %a ( throughoutthecommonwealth,andshallsendacopythereofto %)!) alldealerslicensedinthecommonwealthundertheprovisions &!* ofsaidsection122ofsaidchapter140;andfurther,the i'"+ licensingauthorityshallfurnishsaidrostertoall 1(#, cardholdersandlicenseesuponinitialissuanceanduponevery (I$- renewalofthesame. )%.  ¢Id. *,&/ |  Thestatutealsoprovidesforcitizeninputintotheprocess   ofpromulgatingandupdatingtheroster:?+ 4 <DL!X?"Thesecretarymayamend @ therosteruponhisowninitiativeorwiththeadviceof[theGun   ControlAdvisoryBoard].Apersonmaypetitionthesecretaryto `  placeaweaponon,orremoveaweaponfrom,theroster,subjectto  @ theprovisionsofthissection."Id.TheGunControlAdvisory    board,appointedbytheGovernor,hassevenmembers,"oneofwhom `  shallbeamemberoftheGunOwnersActionLeague."Mass.Gen.   Lawsch.140,131.Thus,oneofthemembersoftheboardmust 0  bearepresentativefromtheleadassociationalplaintiffinthis  case,GOAL.Id.. P   Boththeclarifyinglanguageandtherosterassistlaw 3 enforcementofficersandlaymenininterpretingthestatute.For  example,theplaintiffscomplainthattheterm"'capableof S accepting'doesnotinformtheownerwhethershemustactually 3 possessthefeedingdevice,orwhetherthemanufacture,somewhere s intheworld,ofsomefeedingdevicethatherguniscapableof S  accepting"wouldsuddenlyrenderthegunalargecapacityweapon " (andthusrequireitsownertoobtainaClassAlicense).The #!s$ clarifyinglanguageissuedwiththerosteraddressesthisquestion: "& ȥ"Capableofaccepting"shallmeananyfirearm,rifleor $( shotguninwhichalargecapacityfeedingdeviceiscapableof ^% ) beingusedwithoutalterationoftheweapon;provided, &&v!* however,thatsaidlargecapacityfeedingdeviceisfullyor &>"+ partiallyinsertedintotheweaponorattachedthereto,oris '#, underthedirectcontrolofapersonwhoalsohasdirect ~(#- controlofaweaponcapableofacceptingsaidfeedingdevice. F)$.  ͬ a*%/ ExecutiveOfficeofPublicSafety,LargeCapacityWeaponRoster   EffectiveFebruary15,2002,availableat @ http://www.state.ma.us/chsb/download/frb/largecap_2002.pdf.8   Similaradministrativeclarificationsmaywellanswerother `  questionsraisedbytheplaintiffs.Observingasimilar  @ clarificationprocessonthefederallevel,theSixthCircuitin    PMagaw,132F.3d272(6thCir.1997),refusedtoreviewastatute `  (18U.S.C.926)similartotheMassachusettslawchallengedby   theplaintiffs,inpartbecausetheplaintiffstherehadnotgiven 0  therelevantrulemakingauthorityachancetoclarifythestatute:   X[T]heCrimeControlActdelegatesrulemakingauthoritytothe 3 SecretaryoftheTreasury.TheSecretary,inturn,has K delegatedthatauthoritytotheBATF,whichhastheauthority  tomakerulesdesignatingingreaterspecificitythe  requirementsofthestatute....Webelieveafederalcourt S shouldnotinterveneanddeterminewhetherastatuteenacted k byCongressisunconstitutionallyvagueonitsfacebeforethe 3 agencywithrulemakingauthorityhashadanopportunityto  interpretthestatute. s  XId.at292.ThisreasoningappliestotheActaswell.The   processofadministrativeclarification,begunevenbeforetheAct 9 " tookeffect,hascontinuedduringthependencyofthislitigation.w #  7      ׀ !$ Weseenobasisforprecludingfuturegoodfaitheffortsby Y#& professionalsintheExecutiveOfficeofPublicSafetytoclarify  thestatute. @   Insummary,tߵheopportunityforlicensingminimizesthe #s allegedhardship,andthecontinuingadministrativeclarification   oftheActreducesuncertainty.NeitherCountFournorCountSix C  isripeforreview.  #   B.Prohibitionson"FurnishingaWeapon"toaMinor(Count10)      CountTenoftheplaintiffs'complaint(allegingthatthe 9  statutorybanon"furnishing"weaponstoaminoris y  unconstitutionallyvague)isalsounripe.Massachusettslawhas  Y bannedthefurnishingofweaponstominorsformanyyears.See,  e.g.,1884Mass.Acts76.BeforetheAct,thestatutebannedthe )y furnishingofriflesorshotgunstominors,andsetthepenaltyfor   "furnishing"suchweaponstominorsandaliensbetween$500and I $1,000(withnoprovisionsforimprisonment).Mass.Gen.Lawsch. ) 140,130(1997).TheActupdatedthisstatutorylanguageto i reflectthenewthreetierclassificationsofweaponsandincreased I  thepenaltiesforviolation:  " DWhoever...sellsorfurnishesanyalienoranypersonunder l"$ eighteenyearsofagearifle,shotgun,machinegunor 4#% ammunition,orwhoeversellsorfurnishestoanypersonunder #L& 21yearsofageafirearmorlargecapacityrifleorshotgun $ ' orammunitionthereforshallhavehislicensetosell... % ( revoked...andshallbepunishedbyafineofnotlessthan T&!) $1,000normorethan$10,000,orbyimprisonmentinastate 'l"* prisonfornotmorethantenyearsorbyimprisonmentina '4#+ houseofcorrectionfornotmorethantwoandonehalfyears, (#, orbybothsuchfineandimprisonment. t)$-   *%. oMass.Gen.Lawsch.140,130.AsitdidbeforetheAct,the   statutealsoprovidesseveralexceptionsforparentsandshooting @ instructors.g #  8           IntheirchallengetoCountTen,theplaintiffsreallegethe   vaguenessoftheterm"largecapacityweapon."Wehavealready C  explainedwhythischallengeisunripeforreview.Totheextent  #  thattheplaintiffs'vaguenesschallengeinCountTendependson c  otherarguments,theyspendlessthanonepageofafixtysixpage C  briefdevelopingthem.Theretheyonlyallegethat"[d]uetothe   vaguenessof'furnishes,'theymusteitherriskprosecutionor c discontinueteachingmarksmanshipandsafetytotheyoungsters."  Theydonotexplainwhy"furnishes"isvague,orsuggestthe 3 differentmeaningsitmighthave.Theirreplybriefisalso  unhelpfulonthisissue.Theseadditionalfurnishingargumentson S vaguenessgroundsaredevelopedsoperfunctorilythatwedeemthem 3 waived.SeeUnitedStatesv.Zannino,895F.2d1,17(1stCir. s 1990)("[I]ssuesadvertedtoinaperfunctorymanner,unaccompanied S  bysomeeffortatdevelopedargumentation,aredeemedwaived."). "  S  Theplaintiffsalsoarguethatthefurnishingprovision  violatesequalprotectionbecauseitallowsinstructors,butnot @ parents,tofurnishoneunder21yearsofage"withalarge   capacityrifleorshotgunorammunitiontherefor,"and"norational `  relationtoanylegitimatepurposehasbeensuggestedforthis  @ discriminationagainstparentsandinfavorofinstructors."This    argumentignoresabasicdifferencebetweenparentsand `  instructors:thelatteraresubjecttodetailedtrainingand   licensingrequirements.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,131P. 0  Admittedly,thestatuteissilentonwhethertheinstructormust  supervisetheminorsafterheorshehasfurnishedthemwith P weapons.Nevertheless,theCommonwealth'sclassification 0 here--permittinginstructors,butnotparents,tofurnishalarge p capacityweapontoaminormeetstherationalbasistest.A P  III.FreedomofExpression     TheplaintiffsallegethatoneprovisionintheAct p unconstitutionallyrestrictstheirfreedomofexpression. P  Accordingtothestatute,gunclubswithClassAlicenses"shall " notpermitshootingattargetsthatdepicthumanfigures,human  !p$ effigies,humansilhouettesoranyhumanimagesthereof,exceptby "& publicsafetypersonnelperforminginlinewiththeirofficial @$( duties."Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,131(a).Theplaintiffsargue % !* thatthelaw"censorsimagesprintedontargets...forthefirst `'", timeinworldhistory."Oneplaintiff,OutdoorMessage,Inc., (@$. distributesatargetwiththeimageofAdolphHitleronitsfront, *%0 andanaccountofHitler'srestrictionsonfirearmuseontheback. ,`'2 ThosewhobuythetargetshootattheimageofHitlerinorderto  expresstheiroppositiontotyrannyandrestrictionsongunuse, @ andotherpoliticalmessages.     FirstAmendmentchallengestoproscribedconductusually `  requireatwostepinquiry;first,assessingwhethertheproscribed  @ conductissufficientlycommunicativetocountasexpression    protectedbytheFirstAmendment,andsecondly,whetherthe `  challengedlawiscontentneutralorcontentbased.However,a   courtmaysometimesbrackettheinitialanalysis,assumearguendo 0  thattheconductisexpressiveenoughtocomewithintheambitof  FirstAmendmentprotection,andthencompletethesecondinquiry. P Forexample,intheSupremeCourt'sseminaltreatmentofthe 0 speech/conductdistinction,theCourtdecidedto"assum[e]forthe p sakeofargumentthat'theallegedcommunicativeelementin P O'Brien'sconduct[was]sufficienttobringintoplaytheFirst  Amendment.'"Bartnickiv.Vopper,200F.3d109,119  p (3rdCir.1999)(quotingU.S.v.O'Brien,391U.S.367,376(1968)   (upholdingthedefendant'scriminalpunishmentforburninghis @" draftcard));seealsoAIDSActionCommittee,Inc.v.Massachusetts  $ BayTransp.Auth.,42F.3d1,10(1stCir.1994)B.` hp x (#XB(assuming `"& "arguendothattheMBTAhascorrectlycharacterizedtheAACadsas #@( sexuallyexplicitand/orpatentlyoffensive,thatithasexcluded % * thempursuanttoitswrittenPolicy,andthatitmay '`", constitutionallyproscribesexuallyexplicitand/orpatently (#. offensivespeechinitscars"inorderto"decidewhetherthe 0*%0 contentdiscriminationinherentintheMBTA'sdecisiontorunthe +'2 'FatalInstinct'ads,whilenotrunningtheAACads,is  permissible"). @   Nocourthasrecognizedtargetshootingasaconstitutionally   protectedformofexpression.Theplaintiffsarguethattheyare `  engagedin"expressiveconduct,"liketheflagburningprotectedby  @ theSupremeCourtinTexasv.Johnson,491U.S.397(1989).Such    conductisentitledtoFirstAmendmentprotectionwhenitevinces `  "[a]nintenttoconveyaparticularizedmessage...[and]the   likelihood[is]greatthatthemessagewouldbeunderstoodbythose 0  whoviewedit."Id.at404(1989)(internalquotationmarks  omitted).Inresponsetothisargument,wefollowtheleadof P O'BrienandAIDSActionCommittee,assumingforthepurposeofthe 0 contentneutral/contentbasedanalysisthatthetargetshootingat p humanfiguresdescribedbythedefendantsisexpressiveconduct P entitledtosomedegreeofFirstAmendmentprotection.    "Theprincipalinquiryindeterminingcontent  p neutrality...iswhetherthegovernmenthasadoptedaregulation   ofspeechbecauseofdisagreementwiththemessageitconveys." @" Wardv.RockAgainstRacism,491U.S.781,791(1989).Here,the  $ defendantsassertthattheAct'spurposewastostoptarget `"& practicethatarguablyincreasesthepracticer'scapacitytoshoot #@( humanbeings,nottopreventthepotentiallyexpressiveconduct % * engagedinbysomeoftheplaintiffs. '`",   Theplaintiffsarguethatthegovernment'sexpressedinterest (#. inpreventinggunfatalitiesispretextualbecausetheAct"does 0*%0 notbanshootingatalltargets,butonlyattargetsprintedwith +'2 disfavoredimages."Thedisfavoredimageshereareimagesof  humans,ortargetsshapedlikehumans.Thereisanobvious @ connectionbetweentheCommonwealth'sinterestinpreventinggun   fatalitiesanditsdecisiontorestricttheshootingpracticesof `  certaingunclubs.Apersonwhohaspracticedshootingatahuman  @ shapedtargetwilllikelybemoreproficientatshootinghumans    thanapersonwhohashadtopracticeatacirculartarget.This `  rationaleisabelievable,reasonable,contentneutral   justificationfortheprovision. 0    Theplaintiffscomplainthattheyarespeciallyburdened  becausetheyarenotallowedtoshootatpicturesoftyrants. P However,supportersoftyrantsareaffectedinthesamewaybythe 0 statute:theycannotshootatimagesofadvocatesoffreedom.The p restrictioniscontentneutral,neitheradvancingnorimpedingany P particularviewpoints,butsimplyregulatingaparticularmodeof  potentiallyexpressiveconduct(targetshooting)ataparticular  p place(ClassAlicensedgunclubs).Ofcourse,therestrictionis   morelikelytoburdenexpressiveconductbythosewhoshootat @" targetsbecausesuchindividualsarefarmorelikelytoshootat  $ effigiesorimagesontargetsasaformofexpression. `"& Nevertheless,thislaw,"designedtoservepurposesunrelatedto #@( thecontentofprotectedspeech[shouldbe]deemedcontentneutral % * evenif,incidentally,ithasanadverseeffectoncertainmessages '`", whileleavingothersuntouched."McGuirev.Reilly,260F.3d36, (#. 43(1stCir.2001).AsinO'Brien,"'thegovernmentalinterestis 0*%0 unrelatedtothesuppressionoffreeexpression.'"Johnson,491 +'2 U.S.at406(quotingO'Brien,391U.S.at377.).Therefore,the  restrictionhereiscontentneutral. @   B.` hp x (#XBSincethisrestrictiononthetime,place,andmannerof   expressiveconductiscontentneutral,it"trigger[s]an `  intermediatetypeofscrutiny...[and]willbeupheldaslongas  @ [itis]'narrowlytailoredtoserveasignificantgovernmental    interest,andallow[s]forreasonablealternativechannelsof `  communication.'"KnightsofColumbusv.TownofLexington,272F.3d   25,31(1stCir.2001)(quotingGlobeNewspaperCo.v.BeaconHill 0  ArchitecturalComm'n,100F.3d175,186(1stCir.1996));seealso  Ward,491U.S.781,791(1989);Clarkv.CommunityforCreative P NonViolence,468U.S.288,293(1984).Therestrictiondoesserve 0 a"significantgovernmentalinterest."KnightsofColumbus,272 p F.3dat31.Itaimstopreventthosewhodonothavealicensefor P usinglargecapacityweaponsfromrefiningtheirskillswithsuch  weaponsbyshootingattargetsdepictinghumans.Thestatehasa  p particularinterestinpreventingthoseunlicensedtouselarge   capacityweaponsfrombecomingproficientatshootinghumanswith @" suchweapons.H #  9        $   Therestrictiononshootingattargetsdepictinghumanfigures  isalsonarrowlytailored.Asthedefendantsobserveintheir @ brief,therestriction"appliesonlyinClassAlicensedclubs   becausethosearetheonlyplaceswhereapersonwhodoesnothave `  alicenseforlargecapacityweaponsmayshootsuchweapons."  @   Therestrictionchallengedhere"allowsforreasonable    alternativechannelsofcommunication."Whatevermessagesthe `  appellantsseektoexpressbyshootingathumanimagesontargets,   thosemessagesmaybespreadviawriting,theInternet,wordof 0  mouth,orothercommunicationtechnologies.Similarly,ifthe  destructionofanimageofHitleristhe"communication"atissue, P theyhavereasonablealternativechannelsfordefacingthatimage, 0 byhandorotherphysicalmeans.Iftheappellants'messagecanbe p conveyedonlybyshootingatsuchimages,thestatutestill P "leave[s]openamplealternativechannels"fordisseminatingit:  theymayshootatsuchimagesatanyplacewheretheycanlawfully  p shootattargets,otherthangunclubswithaClassAlicense.      Insummary,theAct'sprovisionsontargetshootingcomply @" withallconstitutionalrequirementsforcontentneutral  $ restrictionsonspeech,andhencepassintermediatescrutiny.+  `"& IV.EqualProtectionChallengetoClassALicensingProvisions $h(  ,  Likeindividuals,certainclubsandfacilitiesmaypossess, %H!* store,anduselargecapacityweaponsiftheysuccessfullyapply '", foraClassAlicense.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.140,131(a).\ #  10      ׀A  cluborfacilitywithaClassAlicensemaypermititsmembersto @ useitslargecapacityweapons,evenifthosemembersdonot   individuallyhaveClassAlicenses,iftheyhaveaClassBlicense `  oranFIDcard.Id.AClassAlicensedcluborfacilitymayalso  @ permitnonmemberstouseitslargecapacityweapons(aslongas    thenonmemberusesthelargecapacityweaponunderthesupervision `  ofaproperlylicensedclubmemberoracertifiedfirearms   instructor).Id. 0    Clubsandfacilitieswhichwanttopossessandstorelarge  capacityweaponsmustapplytotheColoneloftheStatePolicein P ordertoobtainaClassAlicense.Id.Accordingtothestatute, 0 "[t]hecolonelofstatepolicemay,afteraninvestigation,grant  aClassAlicensetoacluborfacilitywithanonsiteshooting @ rangeorgallery...provided,however,thatnotlessthanone   shareholderofsuchclubshallbequalifiedandsuitabletobe `  issuedsuchlicense." Id.Theterm"shareholder"heredenotes  @ threedistinctrequirementsforclubsorfacilitieswhichseekto    obtainaClassAlicense.First,theymustbeincorporated. `  Second,theymustbecorporationswithatleastoneshareholder.   Third,atleastoneshareholderinsuchcorporationsmusthold 0  individuallyaClassAlicense.    Accordingtotheappellants,theserequirementsviolateequal P protectionstandardsbyirrationallydiscriminatingagainst 0 unincorporatedgunclubsandfacilities,andthoseincorporatedgun p clubsandfacilitieswithoutanyshareholders.Notingthatequal P protectionrequiresthegovernmenttoaffordsimilartreatmentto  similarlysituatedpersons,theplaintiffsobservethat"[a]lmost  p allgunclubsaremembershipcorporationswithoutshareholders,"   andthatseveralnamedplaintiffsbelongtogunclubswhich"meet @" everyrequirementoftheActforthelicenseexceptthattheydo  $ nothaveshareholders."Theyalsoarguethat,withinclubswithat `"& leastoneshareholder,apersonotherthanashareholdershouldbe #@( eligibletofulfilltherequirementthatatleastonepersonwithin % * theclub"shallbequalifiedandsuitabletobeissuedaClassA '`", License." (#.  A.ApplicableLegalStandards  0*%0   Thechallengedclassificationis"subjectonlyto...   rationalbasisreview....[I]nthissubsetofconcerns,the @ EqualProtectionClauserequires'thatcities,statesandthe   FederalGovernmentmustexercise theirpowerssoasnotto `  discriminatebetweentheirinhabitantsexceptuponsomereasonable  @ differentiationfairlyrelatedtotheobjectofregulation.'"    Millsv.Maine,118F.3d37,4647(1stCir.1997)(quotingRy. `  ExpressAgency,Inc.v.NewYork,336U.S.106,112(1949)   (Jackson,J.,concurring)).Astatutepassestherationalbasis 0  test"'ifanyreasonablyconceivablesetoffactscouldestablish  arationalrelationshipbetween[it]andthe...government's P legitimateends.'"MontalvoHuertasv.RiveraCruz,885F.2d971, 0 978(1stCir.1989)(quotingTenocoOilCo.,Inc.v.Dep'tof p ConsumerAffairs,876F.2d1013,1021(1stCir.1989)).?+ 4 <DL!X?Weneed P notinquireintothepreciserationaleofthelegislaturein  enactingthestatute.Indeed,"becauseweneverrequirea  p legislaturetoarticulateitsreasonsforenactingastatute,itis   entirelyirrelevantforconstitutionalpurposeswhetherthe @" conceivedreasonforthe% ` %` challengeddistinctionactuallymotivated  $ thelegislature."FCCv.BeachCommunications,Inc.,508U.S.307, `"& 315(1993). #@(   Rationalbasisreviewdoesnotpermitcourtstopassjudgment % * ontheeffectivenessofthelegislature'sproposedclassifications. '`", "Theserestraintsonjudicialreviewhaveaddedforce[whenthe (#. legislatureis]...definingtheclassofpersonssubjecttoa 0*%0 regulatoryrequirement."Id.at316(1993).Thisprocess +'2 "'inevitablyrequiresthatsomepersonswhohaveanalmostequally  strongclaimtofavoredtreatment beplacedondifferentsidesof @ theline,andthefact[that]thelinemighthavebeendrawn   differentlyatsomepointsisamatterforlegislative,ratherthan `  judicial,consideration.'"Id.at315316(quotingUnitedStates  @ RailroadRetirementBd.v.Fritz,449U.S.166,179(1980)).    Legislatorsmayenactcomplexcompromiseswhenaddressingnovel `  socialandeconomicissues,and"itisforthelegislature,notthe   courts,tobalancetheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthenew 0  requirement."Williamsonv.LeeOpticalCo.,348U.S.483,487  (1955).Cognizantofthesestricturesonrationalbasisreview,we P addresseachoftheplaintiffs'equalprotectionchallengestothis 0 portionofthestatute. p  B.TheIncorporationRequirement  P   Incorporatedentitiesaresubjecttodifferentliability 0 standardsandtypesofregulationthanunincorporatedentities.As p thedefendantsargueintheirbrief,"theLegislaturecould... P  haveconcludedthatthedifferencesinscopeofliabilitymight " makeiteasierforcorporationstoobtaininsuranceagainstthe  !p$ riskofinjuryonpremises."GiventhattheSecretaryofStateand "& theAttorneyGeneralregulatecorporations,thelegislaturemay @$( alsohaveconcludedthatanincorporatedguncluborshooting % !* facilityismorelikelytopreventthemisuseoflargecapacity `'", weaponsthananunincorporatedassociation.Manyfederalandstate (@$. lawslegitimatelytreatcorporationsdifferentlythannon *%0 corporations.See,e.g.,TownofBrooklinev.Gorsuch,667F.2d ,`'2 215,221n.4(1stCir.1981)(focusingonthefederaltaxcode);  Semlerv.OregonStateBd.ofDentalExam'rs,294U.S.608,611 @ (1935)(denyingcorporationstherighttopracticedentistry).The   differenttreatmenthereeasilymeetstherationalbasistest. `    C.RequirementthatClassALicensedCorporationsHaveatLeastone  @ Shareholder   0     ` O  ReflectingitspreferenceforlimitingClassAclubor    facilitylicensestoentitiesthataresubjecttomoreformallegal (x  requirements,thelegislaturemayhave# X?XX"X?і#"X?XX X?alsoconcludedthatextant   statelawregulatedtheactivitiesofstockcorporationsandtheir H  shareholdersmorecomprehensivelythanitregulatednonstock ( corporationsandtheirmembers."Everystate['s]statute[s h include]detailedprovisionsonthelegalrelationsofshareholders H towardeachotherandthecorporation."JamesD.Cox,ThomasLee  Hazen,&F.HodgeO'Neal,Corporations1.5,at1.15(1999Supp.). h Wefindnothingirrationalinthelegislativejudgmentthatsuch  detailedprovisionsincreasethelikelihoodthatthesestock 8 corporationswithClassAlicenseswillbemoreresponsiblein ! theiruseoflargecapacityweapons. X #    D.RequirementthataShareholder"shallbequalifiedand !8% suitabletobeissuedaClassALicense"  "(&   Thelegislaturemayhaveconcludedthatshareholdershavea $( greaterstakeintheaffairsofacorporationthannon  &p!* shareholders.Sincethelegislaturewaswillingtopermitnon '#, membersofClassAlicensedclubstouselargecapacityweaponson @)$. thepremisesofaclubunderthesupervisionofaclubmemberwho * &0 holdsaClassAlicense,irrespectiveofwhetherthosenonmembers `,'2 holdalicensetousealargecapacityweapon,thelegislaturemay  havefurtherconcludedthatitsconcernfortheresponsibleuseof @ largecapacityweaponsataClassAlicensedgunclubwouldbe   advancedifatleastoneofthepotentiallysupervisingclub `  memberswasalsoashareholderinthecorporation.Although  @ plaintiffsexpressconsiderableskepticismabouttherationalityof    thisshareholderrequirement,wecannotsaythatthelegislative `  requirementisirrational.Intherealmofsocialandeconomic   regulation,aclassificationpassestherationalbasistest"'if 0  anyreasonablyconceivablesetoffactscouldestablisharational  relationshipbetween[it]andthe...government'slegitimate P ends.'"MontalvoHuertas,885F.2dat978(quotingTenocoOilCo., 0 Inc.v.Dep'tofConsumerAffairs,876F.2d1013,1021(1stCir. p 1989)).Wefindsucharationalrelationshipbetweenthe P shareholderrequirementandtheCommonwealth'sevidentpurposeto  maximizetheresponsibleuseoflargecapacityweaponsonthe  p premisesofgunclubswithClassAlicenses.+    V.FreedomofAssociationChallengetoClassALicensingProvisions  h"   RelyingontheSupremeCourt'srecentdecisioninBoyScouts  !p$ ofAmericav.Dale,530U.S.640(2000),theplaintiffsalsoallege "& thattherestrictionofClassAlicensestoincorporatedgunclubs @$( withatleastoneshareholderforcesthemtoassociatewithmembers % !* ofsuchclubs,inviolationoftheirassociationalrightsunderthe `'", FirstAmendment.Theplaintiffsinsistthat"freedomof (@$. association...plainlypresupposesafreedomnottoassociate." *%0 Id.at648(internalquotationmarksomitted)._ ,`'2   Daleisinapplicablehere.Inthatcase,thestateofNew  JerseyrequiredtheBoyScoutstoacceptgayScoutleaders,which @ "would,attheveryleast,forcetheorganizationtosenda   message,bothtotheyouthmembersandtheworld,thattheBoy `  Scoutsacceptshomosexualconductasalegitimateformof  @ behavior."Id.at653.InthiscasetheCommonwealthisonly    imposingaprocedural,formalrequirementonthestructureofan `  organization.Thestatuteneitherrequiresnorevensuggestsany   forcedassociationofgunownerswithanyoneofdifferingviews. 0    Furthermore,astheCommonwealthpointsout,requiringaclub  toobtainalicenseinordertoenjoyanarrowrangeofprivileges P relatingtolargecapacityweaponsdoesnot"implicateany 0 constitutionallyprotectedrightofassociationbecauseitdoesnot p involve...protectedassociativeactivity."Likeanordinance P restrictingattendanceatcertaindancehallstopersonsofa  certainage,thisregulationsimplydoesnotimplicatetheFirst  p Amendment.SeeCityofDallasv._Stanglin_,490U.S.19,24(1989)   (holdingthatthedancingregulatedbythemunicipalordinance @" "simply[does]notinvolvethesortofexpressiveassociationthat  $ theFirstAmendmenthasbeenheldtoprotect").Theplaintiffs `"& arenotbeingforcedtojoinanyassociationthatespousesa #@( politicalviewpoint,andarenotrequiredtopermitpersonswhose % * viewpointstheyfindobjectionabletojointheirownassociation. '`", Therefore,theirFirstAmendmentchallengetotheClassAlicensing (#. provisionsis_meritless_. 0*%0  +'2 _S& VI.Conclusion     Likemanycitizenstryingtocomplywithacomplexregulatory  scheme,theplaintiffsheredescribedifficultiesinunderstanding  p theAct.Withoutminimizingtheirconcerns,weconcludethatthis   preenforcementchallengetotheActisnotripeforreviewforall @  ofthereasonsstated.Althoughjusticiable,theirvariedFirst    AmendmentandEqualProtectionchallengesaremeritless.We `  thereforeaffirmthedecisionofthedistrictcourt. @   Soordered.Eachsideshallbearitsowncosts. # X?XX"X?#