Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM

A constitutional challenge to Massachusetts restrictions on certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines reached the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, marking the fourth gun-related petition that asks the high court for regulatory guidance in the new term.

The Massachusetts petition—in the case Worman v. Healey—was filed on behalf of a group of firearm owners, dealers and an advocacy organization. John Parker Sweeney, a Bradley Arant Boult Cummings partner in Washington, is lead counsel for the challengers.

The justices in recent years have shown some reluctance to wade into Second Amendment issues. But the court, with newly appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh sitting, agreed to decide whether restrictions on the transport of guns outside of New York City violate the Second Amendment and other provisions. Oral arguments are scheduled Dec. 2.

"The courts below upheld Massachusetts' ban on possession of popular semiautomatic firearms and standard ammunition magazines by law-abiding, responsible citizens, infringing their right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense," Sweeney wrote in Monday's petition.

The Massachusetts law is modeled after the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. The state law restricts the sale, transfer and possession of certain semi-automatic weapons and gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. A federal appeals court, with retired Justice David Souter on the panel, upheld the regulations.

In signing the bill into law, then-Gov. Mitt Romney, now a Republican U.S. senator from Utah, declared that semi-automatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazine "are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

In April, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the state law. The panel, led by Judge Bruce Selya, ruled that the restrictions "do not heavily burden the core right of self-defense in the home." Sweeney argued the case for the challengers in the First Circuit.

The state law does not ban all semi-automatic weapons and magazines, Selya said, only a set of specifically enumerated weapons and magazines of particular capacity.

"Equally as important is what the record does not show: it offers no indication that the proscribed weapons have commonly been used for home self-defense purposes," Selya wrote. "Viewed as a whole, the record suggests that wielding the proscribed weapons for self-defense within the home is tantamount to using a sledgehammer to crack open the shell of a peanut."

In urging the high court to grant review, Bradley Arant's Sweeney asked the Supreme Court to decide one question: Does the Massachusetts ban violate the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment?

Central to that question, Sweeney wrote, is the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in the case Heller v. District of Columbia. The divided court struck down a District of Columbia law that forbade the possession of firearms.

Sweeney argued in the petition that the Heller ruling mandates a "clear and simple" standard: the government may not ban arms that typically are possessed for lawful purposes such as self-defense.

The banned firearms in Massachusetts include AR-and AK-platform rifles, weapons that have been used, among others, in mass shootings around the country. In 2015, Walmart Inc. stopped selling semi-automatic firearms, including the AR-15 rifle, and the company recently announced plans to end ammunition sales.

Sweeney has long represented pro-firearms interests. In 2008, he represented state legislators backing challenges to Chicago's firearm regulations in the case McDonald v. Chicago.

Sweeney is involved in three other gun-related appeals: Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan in the Fourth Circuit, a challenge to a Maryland law prohibiting the sale and possession of "bump stocks"; Doe v. Governor of Pennsylvania in the Third Circuit, a challenge to the constitutionality of a provision in state law that prohibits a person temporarily committed for a mental health evaluation from possessing firearms; and Adcor Industries v. Beretta U.S.A., a Maryland Court of Special Appeals case involving breach of a nondisclosure agreement for Adcor's technology in the development of Beretta's AR-15 rifle.

Sweeney recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the National Rifle Association in a U.S. Supreme Case involving claims against Remington Arms Co. stemming from the Sandy Hook shooting that killed 20 children and six adults. The Connecticut Supreme Court permitted claims to proceed against Remington, which the plaintiffs contend marketed a "weapon of war." The NRA and other gun advocates contend federal law preempts the plaintiffs' claims.

Besides the Massachusetts and Connecticut cases, the Supreme Court also has pending petitions involving a challenge to the U.S. Justice Department's bump stock rule (Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) and liability of online marketplaces for firearms (Daniel v. Armslist).

Read more:

Gun Rights Advocates Ask SCOTUS to Review Bump-Stock Ban

Noel Francisco Wants to Argue in Disputed Gun Case the Justices Might Not Hear

Justices, With Kavanaugh Seated, End 9-Year Avoidance of Gun Regulations

'Weapons of War' And Other Thoughts from Judges About AR-15 Rifles