MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This case raises a Second Amendment challenge to the licensing scheme of the Massachusetts Gun Control Act of 1998. The essential facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff Michael Wesson is a sixty-five-year-old resident of Salisbury, Massachusetts. In 1973, Wesson was convicted in Maine of misdemeanor possession of a small amount of marihuana (a “joint”) and paid a $300 fine. He has no other record of criminal convictions. Wesson possesses a valid Firearm Identification Card (FID) issued in 1993 pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 129B, by the Salisbury Chief of Police. Plaintiff Thomas Woods is a fifty-two-year-old resident of Natick, Massachusetts. In 1982, while on active service in the U.S. Navy, Woods was convicted in Norfolk, Virginia of simple possession of marihuana (“a small bag”) and paid a $10 fine. He has no other record of criminal convictions. Woods possesses a valid FID issued in 2011 by the Natick Chief of Police.

In January of 2013, Wesson applied for a permit to purchase (PTP) a firearm, which was denied by Chief Fowler because of the statutory disqualification stemming from his marihuana conviction. In June of 2011, Woods applied for a license to carry a firearm, which was denied by Chief Hicks because of the statutory disqualification. In February of 2013, Woods applied for a PTP, which was denied on the same ground. Both Wesson and Woods have *174led exemplary adult lives and both desire to purchase and possess a handgun for self-defense in their homes and for recreational shooting and target practice.1 The Amended Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the Federal Civil Rights Act).

Statutory Background

The 1998 Gun Control Act substantially rewrote the Massachusetts firearms laws. The statute established a new category of firearm, the “large capacity weapon,” comprised of all semiautomatic weapons equipped with (or readily adapted to) a “large capacity feeding device” (or magazine), all weapons with rotating cylinders capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition in the case of a rifle or firearm or in the case of a shotgun more than five shells. This category includes all weapons classified as “assault weapons” (many of which are listed in the statute by name).2 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 121. A “suitable person” with a “proper purpose” may be issued a license to possess (and carry) a firearm in public by the chief of police or other designated authority in the city or town in which the licensee lives or has a place of business. Id. § 181(d). A licensing authority has “considerable latitude” in performing its duty of insuring that irresponsible persons do not have access to deadly weapons. Ruggiero v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 18 Mass.App.Ct. 256, 258-259, 464 N.E.2d 104 (1984).

Licenses to carry firearms are divided into two classes, A and B. The Class A license permits its holder to possess and carry all types of firearms, including large capacity weapons, “for all lawful purposes.” The Class B license permits its holder to possess and carry non-large capacity firearms and large capacity rifles and shotguns. A Class B licensee is not, however, permitted to carry or possess a loaded firearm “in a concealed manner in any public way or place.” The licensing authority may issue Class A and Class B licenses subject to any restrictions the issuing authority “deems proper.” See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131(a) (Class A licenses) & (b) (Class B licenses). An FID authorizes the holder to possess non-large capacity rifles and shotguns, and associated ammunition. The FID, unlike the Class A and Class B permits, does not authorize the carrying of a firearm. Id. § 129B(6). In issuing an FID, unlike the case with a Class A or Class B license, the licensing authority may not impose any special restriction on the grantee. Id. at § 1296(3).

*175A Class A or Class B license may not be issued to any person who: (1) has been convicted (as an adult or juvenile) of a felony, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years, a “violent crime” as defined in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 121, a crime involving the use or sale of firearms, or a violation of any criminal provision of the firearms law or the Controlled Substances Act; (2) has been committed for treatment for mental illness (unless a registered physician attests that the applicant is currently not mentally disabled); (3) has been treated for drug or alcohol addiction (unless a physician attests that five years have elapsed since such treatment and that the applicant is recovered); (4) is under age twenty-one; (5) is an alien; (6) is the subject of a temporary or permanent domestic abuse protection order; or (7) is the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant. Id. at § 131(d).3

An applicant aggrieved by a denial of an application for a license to carry or an FID or by its suspension or revocation may within ninety days seek review in the District Court having jurisdiction over the Town where the applicant resides. A Justice, after a hearing, may order the license to carry or FID issued or reinstated if he or she finds that the petitioner is not prohibited by law from possessing an FID, or in the case of a license to carry, that there were no reasonable grounds to justify the licensing authority’s action. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 129B(5); § 131(f). The District Court proceedings “are narrow in scope” and confined to the issue of, whether on all of the facts, the decision of the permitting authority to deny the issuance or revoke or suspend the permit was reasonable. Godfrey v. Chief of Police of Wellesley, 35 Mass.App. Ct. 42, 45, 616 N.E.2d 485 (1993). The court is not required to observe the formalities of a trial; the touchstone for the admission of evidence is simply its relevance. Chief of Police of Shelburne v. Moyer, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 543, 547, 453 N.E.2d 461 (1983). The appellant has the burden of producing “substantial evidence” demonstrating that the revocation decision “was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 546, 453 N.E.2d 461. An appeal of a District Court judge’s decision may be taken to the Superior Court by way of an action in the nature of certio-rari pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, § 4. Godfrey, 35 Mass.App.Ct. at 45-46, 616 N.E.2d 485.4

*176Constitutional Background

Article 17 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights does not guarantee an individual’s right to possess and bear arms except when called to service in a duly constituted militia. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 369 Mass. 886, 887-888, 343 N.E.2d 847 (1976). The Second Amendment, on the other hand, “codifies a ‘right of the people’” as individuals “to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” in the defense of “hearth and home.” Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 579, 592, 599, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) (overturning a local ban on possession of an operable firearm in one’s own home for purposes of self-defense).5 The view taken by most federal courts post-Heller, that “[i]t is settled law ... that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on [the right to bear arms],” see, e.g., Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56, 58 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam), was repudiated by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, III, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3029, 3050, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010). McDonald struck down a Chicago ordinance that effectively banned the possession of handguns by City residents. While rejecting the petitioners’ principal argument that the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by incorporation, makes the Second Amendment right binding on the States. In deciding that the right to bear arms is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Justice Alito found this to be especially true of handguns “because they are the ‘the most preferred firearm in the nation ... for protection of one’s home and family.’ ” Id. at 3036 (internal citations omitted).

*177Legal Standards

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a). Although all reasonable inferences are drawn in the nonmovant’s favor, the court cannot “ ‘draw unreasonable inferences or credit bald assertions, empty conclusions, rank conjecture, or vitriolic invective.’ ” Pina v. Children’s Place, 740 F.3d 785, 795 (1st Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original), quoting Cabán Hernandez v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2007).

The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 (mirrored by Fed. R.Civ.P. 57), “does not itself confer subject matter jurisdiction, but, rather, makes available an added anodyne for disputes that come within the federal courts’ jurisdiction on some other basis_ Consequently, federal courts retain substantial discretion in deciding whether to grant declaratory relief.” Ernst & Young v. Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp., 45 F.3d 530, 534 (1st Cir. 1995). For a claim to be ripe in the declaratory judgment context, two prongs must be met-fitness for review and hardship. Id. at 535. Fitness involves the question of whether “the claim involves uncertain and contingent events that may not occur as anticipated or indeed may not occur at all.” Mass. Ass’n of Afro-Am. Police, Inc. v. Boston Police Dep’t, 973 F.2d 18, 20 (1st Cir. 1992) (per curiam). “[T]he hallmark of cognizable hardship is usually direct and immediate harm, [although] other kinds of injuries occasionally may suffice.” Ernst & Young, 45 F.3d at 536.

DISCUSSION

Both Wesson and Woods were denied PTPs or a license to carry a firearm because of the controlled substances disqualification imposed by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131(d)(i)(e), based on 30 and 40-year-old misdemeanor convictions for possession of marihuana. In 2008, Massachusetts voters approved an initiative (The Sensible State Marihuana Policy Act) decriminalizing the possession of one ounce of marihuana or less, codified as Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32L. Under the terms of the Act, state law may not “impose any form of penalty, sanction or disqualification” for simple possession of marihuana other than the civil sanctions provided by section 32L.6 Moreover, state law has since 1971 allowed the sealing of the record of a person convicted of first-time marihuana misdemeanor possession who successfully completes probation. A record, once sealed, “shall not be deemed a conviction for purposes of disqualification or for any other purpose.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 34. As the Commonwealth forthrightly concedes, “had Wesson and Wells’ misdemeanor convictions for marijuana possession been in entered in Massachusetts (rather than Maine and Virginia), they might well be eligible today for the license and permit they seek.” Commonwealth Br. at 2.

It must first be stated what plaintiffs are not seeking in the Amended Complaint. They are not raising a federal *178constitutional challenge to the validity of the Massachusetts Gun Control Act. Nor do they assert that Heller and McDonald confer an unrestricted Second Amendment right on citizens to carry concealed or visible firearms for self-defense outside of the home. But see Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936-937 (7th Cir. 2012) (finding such a right). Plaintiffs are not challenging the right of the Chiefs of Police to exercise-their discretion as licensing authorities. Nor finally do they challenge the constitutionality of the statutory disqualification of persons convicted of violations of the controlled substances laws from possessing firearms. What they are seeking is a vindication of their personal Second Amendment rights to purchase and possess firearms for home self-defense. They also seek, as an extension of the core right of home self-defense, the right, subject to reasonable restrictions, to transport firearms to a shooting range or other lawful location to maintain proficiency in their use. See Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (“The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective.”). Subject to the understanding that plaintiffs are not seeking any unrestricted right to carry firearms outside their homes, the Commonwealth proposes, and the court agrees, that plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that, as applied to them, sections 131(d)(i)(e) and 131A infringe their Second Amendment right to possess firearms in the home for self-defense. Commonwealth Br. at 19.

ORDER

For the reasons stated, it is ADJUDGED and DECLARED that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131(d)(i)(e) and § 131A as applied to the plaintiffs Wesson and Woods infringe their Second Amendment right to possess firearms in their home for purposes of self-defense and the right to maintain proficiency in their use. Taking note of the agreement among the parties at oral argument that plaintiffs are suitable persons seeking permission to purchase and possess firearms for a proper purpose, the court orders as follows: The Chiefs of Police of Salisbury and Na-tick are ORDERED to give prompt consideration to any application of plaintiffs for the necessary permits and/or licenses to maintain firearms for self-defense in their homes and, subject to such reasonable restrictions as the licensing authorities may decide to impose, to transport them to lawful locations for purposes of practice shooting.7

SO ORDERED.