GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9577
11th Cir.2015Background
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prohibits possession of loaded firearms or ammunition on Corps-managed projects (except in designated hunting areas, shooting ranges, or with written permission), punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 and § 327.25.
- GeorgiaCarry.Org (GCO) and member David James (a Georgia weapons carry licensee) challenge enforcement at Allatoona Lake (a Corps recreational site) after James’s request for written permission to carry was denied; they sought a preliminary injunction and declaratory/permanent relief.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding the challenged conduct outside Second Amendment protection and, alternatively, that the regulation would survive intermediate scrutiny given Corps safety and infrastructure interests.
- On appeal the plaintiffs argued only that the regulation is per se unconstitutional because it "destroys" the Second Amendment right on Corps property (analogizing to Heller and Peruta) and thus needs no tiered scrutiny analysis.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction: it rejected the plaintiffs’ all-or-nothing argument because the Corps rule is geographically narrow (limited to Corps property/recreational areas) and does not eliminate the right to bear arms elsewhere; the court also emphasized the thin preliminary-record and declined to resolve broader historical or scrutiny questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Corps regulation is per se unconstitutional because it "destroys" the Second Amendment right on Corps property | The regulation (banning loaded firearms and ammo) wholly eliminates the right to bear arms at Allatoona and therefore must be invalidated per Heller-style per se rule | The regulation is geographically limited to Corps property/recreational sites and thus does not destroy the general right to keep and bear arms | Denied: Court held plaintiffs failed to show the regulation destroys the right; narrow geographic scope means it does not effectuate a per se Heller-type invalidation |
| Whether the regulated conduct lies outside Second Amendment protection (sensitive-places/owner-exclusion principles) | Implied: plaintiffs contended Second Amendment protects carrying at Allatoona for self-defense | Government relied on Heller’s sensitive-places dictum and on property-owner exclusion principles to justify limiting carry on Corps land | Court did not finally decide; accepted district court’s as-applied reasoning that conduct may fall outside protection but declined to resolve definitively on thin record |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny and fit (if right applies) | Plaintiffs assumed per se rule so did not brief scrutiny | Government asserted intermediate scrutiny would apply and the rule is substantially related to safety and infrastructure protection | Court declined to assess scrutiny on the preliminary record and because plaintiffs raised only per se argument; remanded for fuller factual development |
| Preliminary injunction factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest) | Plaintiffs argued irreparable constitutional injury and public interest favor injunction | Government argued plaintiffs lacked substantial likelihood on merits and injunction would harm Corps’ ability to manage recreation and safety | Court affirmed denial because plaintiffs failed to show substantial likelihood of success; thus injunction factors not met |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to bear arms for self-defense but endorses longstanding restrictions and "sensitive places" dictum)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the states and emphasizes self-defense as central)
- GeorgiaCarry.Org v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2012) (adopts two-step Second Amendment test and upholds property-owner exclusion for certain locations)
- Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014) (panel held carrying outside the home is protected and certain permitting regimes may "destroy" the right)
- White v. United States, 593 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholds federal prohibition on firearm possession by domestic-violence misdemeanants under Heller’s longstanding-prohibitions dictum)
- Rozier v. United States, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholds felon-dispossession statute consistent with Heller)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (struck down Illinois ban on public carry as effectively confining self-defense to the home)
- United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (upheld prohibition on carrying a loaded weapon within a motor vehicle in national parks)