345 A.3d 1037
Del. Super. Ct.2025Background
- Delaware passed HB 451 in 2022, restricting the purchase and possession of most firearms by individuals aged 18–20, with limited exceptions (e.g., military, law enforcement, concealed carry permit holders).
- Plaintiffs are a Delaware resident (aged 18–20) and two firearms associations who argue HB 451 violates Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms.
- The case originated in Chancery Court but was dismissed and transferred to the Delaware Superior Court, eventually proceeding solely under the state constitution after removal of federal claims.
- Plaintiffs and defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, leading the court to treat the record as a full merits determination due to the lack of material factual disputes.
- The central debate: whether the Delaware courts must apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen “history and tradition” test or follow Delaware Supreme Court precedent (intermediate scrutiny) under Article I, Section 20.
- The court applied intermediate scrutiny (Doe and Bridgeville precedents), ultimately finding HB 451 unconstitutional as it overly burdens adults’ (18–20-year-olds’) right to self-defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for Delaware Const. Art. I, § 20 | Bruen test (history/tradition) should apply, not intermediate scrutiny | Intermediate scrutiny is binding per Delaware precedent | Delaware courts must follow binding precedent—intermediate scrutiny applies |
| Scope of Section 20—Are 18–20-year-olds “persons” | Adults 18+ are fully protected by Section 20 | Those under 21 historically not included; legislature can set age limits | 18–20-year-olds are adults under Delaware law and protected by Section 20 |
| Sufficiency of government interest for HB 451 | State’s interest is a generic safety concern, too broad | HB 451 targets a specific group shown to commit more firearm offenses | State identified an important governmental objective but must meet all scrutiny prongs |
| Constitutionality of restrictions under intermediate scrutiny | Ban is too broad, bars core self-defense rights to adults | Exemptions (hunting, shotguns, concealed carry) make it reasonable | HB 451 is not “reasonably necessary”; ban burdens right more than required |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. State, 47 A.3d 487 (Del. 2012) (adopted heightened scrutiny for Section 20 firearm claims)
- Doe v. Wilmington Hous. Auth., 88 A.3d 654 (Del. 2014) (set intermediate scrutiny for Delaware’s right to bear arms)
- Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club, Ltd. v. Small, 176 A.3d 632 (Del. 2017) (reaffirmed intermediate scrutiny and broader state constitutional right to bear arms)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (established core right to handgun possession for self-defense under Second Amendment)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (Bruen test for Second Amendment challenges—history and tradition, not means-end scrutiny)