664 F.Supp.3d 584
D. Del.2023Background
- On June 30, 2022 Delaware enacted two gun-safety laws challenged here: HB 450 (enumerated and feature-based bans on many semiautomatic "assault weapons" with limited grandfathering) and SS 1 for SB 6 (ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) >17 rounds plus a buy‑back, no grandfathering).
- Multiple related suits were filed and consolidated; plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunctions to block enforcement of HB 450 and SS 1 for SB 6.
- Plaintiffs challenged the statutes under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments (and earlier raised state-law claims later dismissed without prejudice).
- At the preliminary‑injunction stage the court applied the Supreme Court's Bruen two-step framework: (1) whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers the regulated conduct; (2) if so, whether the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- The record was largely supplied by defendants, including expert declarations on lethality, technological development, and mass‑shooting data; plaintiffs offered little testimonial evidence.
- The court denied the preliminary injunctions, finding plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and failed to show irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the banned assault weapons are covered by the Second Amendment ("arms" / "in common use" for self‑defense) | Assault long guns (e.g., AR‑style rifles) and some pistols/copycats are widely owned and thus in common use for lawful purposes including self‑defense. | Even if common, many features make these weapons ill‑suited or unusually dangerous; "common use" should be measured by use for self‑defense. | Court: Some assault long guns (not all categories like "assault pistols" or every copycat) and their common LCMs are bearable arms in common use for self‑defense and presumptively protected. |
| Whether large‑capacity magazines (LCMs) are "arms" and in common use | LCMs are factory‑standard on many popular rifles (e.g., AR platform) and tens of millions exist; thus LCMs are arms in common use for lawful purposes including self‑defense. | Plaintiffs cannot show LCMs are necessary for self‑defense and many uses are inappropriate; historical analogies differ. | Court: Bound by Third Circuit precedent that magazines are "arms"; finds LCMs are in common use for self‑defense and presumptively protected. |
| Whether the bans survive Bruen’s historical‑tradition inquiry | Once a weapon is common, it cannot be regulated; no comparable historical analogues existed. | Modern assault weapons/LCMs implicate dramatic technological change and unprecedented mass‑shooting harms; historical analogues (knife, billy club, early machine‑gun/ammunition‑feeding restrictions) are sufficiently analogous. | Court: Government met its burden; analogues (bans/restrictions on Bowie knives, billy clubs, Thompson/machine‑gun and magazine‑related measures) show a historical tradition of regulating weapons when they proliferated and caused public harm. Statutes consistent with historical tradition. |
| Whether plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction | Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed by loss of Second Amendment rights and business losses. | Plaintiffs retain effective alternatives for self‑defense (handguns, other firearms); business harms are speculative and not constitutionally irreparable. | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm; inability to possess these specific weapons or magazines does not presumptively or demonstrably deprive them of self‑defense or create irreparable business injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (establishing that, if the Second Amendment covers conduct, government must show regulation aligns with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation).
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizing an individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense and limiting protection to arms in common use and not "dangerous and unusual").
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states).
- Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Att'y Gen. N.J., 910 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 2018) (holding magazines are "arms" under the Second Amendment).
- Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2017) (explaining the preliminary injunction factors and that likelihood of success and irreparable harm are the most critical).
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishing the standard that a preliminary injunction is extraordinary relief requiring clear showing).
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (reminding that movant carries a heavy burden for preliminary injunctions).