Heller v. District of Columbia
399 U.S. App. D.C. 314
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- After Heller held DC's handgun ban unconstitutional, FRA 2008 enacted broad gun-regulation provisions in DC.
- Plaintiffs challenge DC's gun-regulation scheme: general firearm registration, bans on assault weapons, and large-capacity magazines.
- District Court granted summary judgment upholding many provisions as within DC's authority and constitutionally permissible under scrutiny.
- DC Council's FRA included both longstanding registration measures and novel owner-licensing-like requirements (training, knowledge of laws, fingerprints, renewals, etc.).
- Court adopts a two-step framework: first assess statutory authority, then assess Second Amendment impact; registry for handguns treated as presumptively lawful while novel regs are scrutinized.
- Court remands novel registration provisions and long-gun registration aspects for further evidentiary development, while upholding basic handgun registration and assault-weapons/magazine bans.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did DC have statutory authority to enact the challenged gun laws? | Heller limits DC's powers; 1906 Act restricts regulation. | HRA grants broad legislative power; 1906 Act clarifies function, allowing regulation. | DC authority affirmed; HRA preempts 1906 Act for firearms regulation. |
| Do registration requirements infringe the Second Amendment? | Registration burdens core right and is not longstanding; novel regs are unconstitutional. | Registration is longstanding or presumptively lawful; some novel regs serve police/crime-control interests. | Basic handgun registration presumptively lawful; novel registration and long-gun application remanded. |
| What level of scrutiny applies to registration and the novel provisions? | Strict scrutiny required for core rights; novel regs fail any heightened scrutiny. | Intermediate scrutiny appropriate for many gun regulations; some regs may require closer fit. | Applicable standard is intermediate scrutiny for novel registrations; remand for evidence of narrowly tailored fit. |
| Do assault weapons bans and large-capacity magazines pass constitutional muster? | Assault weapons/magazines are commonly used for self-defense; bans overly broad. | Assault weapons and high-capacity mags are dangerous, not in common use for lawful purposes; bans uphold public safety. | Assault weapons ban and ten-round-magazine limit survive intermediate scrutiny. |
| Should the registration requirements as applied to long guns be upheld? | Long-gun registration is not longstanding and thus unconstitutional. | Long-gun regulations may be subject to tailoring; DC has asserted compelling interests. | Long-gun registration is remanded for evidentiary development; basic handgun registration remains upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (DC Sup. Ct. 2008) (recognizes core right, limits on scope; longstanding regulations permissible)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated; rejects cost-benefit balancing)
- Marzzarella v. 3rd Cir., 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (supports intermediate scrutiny for registration-like restrictions)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (articulates framework for assessing gun-regulation scrutiny)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (Supreme Court 1939) (historical test: weapons used for common lawful purposes)
- Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (Supreme Court 1994) (illustrates balancing approach in some contexts; relevant as comparative framing)