Heller v. District of Columbia
419 U.S. App. D.C. 287
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- DC seeks to defend gun-registration laws as constitutional under the Second Amendment.
- Heller challenges several registration provisions and the district court’s use of expert reports.
- The court previously remanded for more evidence on long-gun registration and related conditions.
- The district court admitted three of four DC expert reports; Heller moved to strike them.
- The court granted summary judgment for DC; this appeal follows.
- The majority splits on which registration provisions survive intermediate scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert reports | Heller argues Rule 26(a)(2)(B) failures; testimony unreliable | District contends reports were adequately transparent and challenges go to weight | No abuse of discretion; reports admissible |
| Constitutionality of basic long-gun registration | Long-gun registration burden is de minimis and protected | Registration serves public safety interests and is appropriate | Constitutional under intermediate scrutiny |
| In-person appearance, fingerprinting, and photographing | Burden excessive and not necessary for safety | Promotes public safety by identifying owners and verifying eligibility | Constitutional under intermediate scrutiny |
| Bringing the firearm to be registered (present-the-firearm) | Unnecessary burden that cannot be shown to improve safety | Necessary for verification and safety screening of the weapon | Unconstitutional |
| Re-registration, knowledge testing, and one-pistol-per-30-days | Those provisions burden rights without sufficient public safety justification | Provide ongoing accountability and public safety benefits | Unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. Dist. of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes right to bear arms and limits on regulations; foundational DC decision)
- Heller v. Dist. of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (two-step approach; basic handgun registration presumptively lawful; long guns require more proof)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1989) (substantial governmental interest; tailoring intermediate scrutiny framework)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (intermediate scrutiny guidance on balancing government interest and rights burden)
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) (history, consensus, and common sense can justify restrictions under intermediate scrutiny)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (2014) (intermediate scrutiny; protective approach to regulating speech-like restrictions in context)
- McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) (preserves scope of federal regulation under heightened scrutiny considerations)
- United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (cautionary stance on deference to legislative judgments in firearms regulation)