Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club, Ltd. v. Small
S16C-06-018 THG
Del. Super. Ct.Dec 23, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club, individual members, and Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association) seek declaratory relief to invalidate DNREC and DOA regulations prohibiting possession of firearms in State Parks and State Forests.
- DNREC regulation generally bans firearms, air rifles, B.B. guns, slingshots, and archery equipment on lands/waters it administers unless authorized; DOA regulation permits firearms only for legal hunting on State Forest lands.
- The challenged regulations predate Delaware’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms (Art. I, § 20, adopted 1987) and have evolved since the 1960s–2000s.
- Plaintiffs claim the regulations (1) violate Article I, § 20 of the Delaware Constitution, (2) are preempted by state statutes governing firearms, and (3) exceed the agencies’ statutory authority.
- The Court considered cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority as the primary constitutional guide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Regulations violate Art. I, § 20 (right to keep and bear arms) | Regulations unlawfully burden the constitutional right to bear arms outside the home for self‑defense, hunting, and recreation | Section 20 does not create an unfettered right; the state may impose reasonable, safety‑based restrictions on government property | Court: Regulations survive intermediate scrutiny; they serve important public‑safety objectives and are substantially related to those objectives; no undue burden on § 20 rights |
| Whether state statutes implicitly or expressly preempt the Agencies from regulating firearms on State parks/forests | State firearm statutes form a comprehensive scheme preempting further regulation, or express preemption of local firearms regulation implies agencies were also preempted | Statutes cited do not show an intent to occupy the field; explicit preemption language in code applies to municipalities/counties, not state agencies; no conflict with legislative objectives | Court: No preemption; agencies were not barred from promulgating the Regulations |
| Whether the Agencies exceeded statutory authority in promulgating the Regulations | Agencies lack power to restrict firearms beyond what statute permits | Enabling statutes delegate authority to DNREC and DOA to promulgate rules protecting park/forest resources and public safety | Court: Agencies acted within delegated authority; Regulations are authorized and appropriate |
| Whether the Regulations are more restrictive than reasonably necessary (narrow tailoring) | Regulations are overbroad relative to the constitutional right and less restrictive alternatives exist | Regulations are tailored to protect visitor safety and consistent with park/forest management goals | Court: Restrictions are substantially related to safety objectives and not overly burdensome |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Wilmington Hous. Auth., 88 A.3d 654 (Del. 2014) (establishes intermediate scrutiny for burdens on Delaware’s constitutional right to bear arms and analyzes context of government property use)
- Cantinca v. Fontana, 884 A.2d 468 (Del. 2005) (preemption/conflict test: state statute prevails when intended to be exclusive or local rule hinders state objectives)
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993) (discusses the inherently dangerous nature of firearms)
- Office of the Commissioner, Del. Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Appeals Comm’n, Del. Alcoholic Beverage Control, 116 A.3d 1221 (Del. 2015) (administrative agencies derive powers only from enabling statutes)
- Griffin v. State, 47 A.3d 487 (Del. 2012) (recognizes strength of interest in the right to keep and bear arms when a weapon is in the home or used for security)