45 F. Supp. 3d 35
D.D.C.2014Background
- DC regulates firearms via Firearms Registration Amendment Act (FRA) creating city-wide registry; registration applies to handguns and long guns; Heller I struck down DC handgun ban and rough pre-regulatory regime; FRA and 2012 amendments expanded registration and related requirements; Heller II remanded for more record to justify non-handgun provisions; district court granted summary judgment to DC on many provisions while remanding for evidence; court adopts intermediate-scrutiny framework and finds substantial evidence supporting most challenged provisions; plaintiffs challenge long-gun registration, in-person appearance, fingerprinting, photo, safety training, one-pistol-per-month limit, renewal, and administrative provisions; court dismisses standing on vision requirement as to blind provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does long-gun basic registration burden the Second Amendment and, if so, is it substantially related to DC interests? | Heller II argued long-gun registration is de minimis or not sufficiently tied to interests. | DC showed substantial evidence that long-gun registration advances public safety and police protection. | Yes; long-gun registration passes intermediate scrutiny. |
| Are the in-person registration, fingerprinting, and photographing substantially related to DC interests? | These process requirements are burdensome and not narrowly tailored. | These measures prevent fraud, enhance background checks, and verify ownership. | Yes; these process requirements survive intermediate scrutiny. |
| Do the firearms-safety training and knowledge test requirements survive intermediate scrutiny? | No empirical proof that training reduces crimes or accidents. | Evidence and common sense show training improves safety and accountability. | Yes; training and testing survive intermediate scrutiny. |
| Is the one-pistol-per-month limit substantially related to DC interests? | Limit is overly broad and ineffective at reducing trafficking. | Empirical studies and expert testimony link limits to reduced trafficking and safer ownership. | Yes; limit survives intermediate scrutiny. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (struck down DC handgun ban; self-defense in home)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (U.S. 1994) (predictions supported by substantial evidence; deference to legislature)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1997) (substantial evidence standard; deference to predictive judgments)
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (U.S. 2001) (evidence may include studies/ anecdotes; reasonable evidence suffices)
- Alameda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 535 U.S. 435 (U.S. 2002) (varied evidence sources acceptable in intermediate scrutiny)
- Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (upheld gun-registration framework, remand for further facts on remaining provisions)