Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
60 F. Supp. 3d 1120
D. Idaho2014Background
- Plaintiffs challenge 36 C.F.R. § 327.13, prohibiting possession of loaded firearms and related weapons on Corps property, as applied to Corps recreation sites.
- The regulation governs 700 dams and surrounding recreation areas serving hundreds of millions of visitors annually and was adopted in 1973 for management purposes.
- Plaintiffs allege the regulation violates the Second Amendment by banning possession in tents and carrying on recreation sites.
- The Court granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment and denied the Corps’ motion after cross-motions and oral argument.
- The Court holds the Corps may regulate handguns on its property but cannot prohibit self-defense-carry entirely; the injunction is limited to Idaho.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 327.13 burden Second Amendment rights? | Morris and Baker argue it bans self-defense carry on Corps lands. | Corps asserts permissible regulation as proprietor for safety and sensitive-venue concerns. | Yes, it burdens core rights. |
| What level of scrutiny applies when a regulation burdens the right to bear arms? | Peruta-driven approach applies because the right is burdened. | Rolled into intermediate scrutiny under standard balancing. | Not necessary to reach intermediate scrutiny; Peruta applies because the right is destroyed. |
| Does the regulation destroy the Second Amendment right to self-defense outside the home? | Ban goes beyond burdening and destroys the right for law-abiding citizens. | Regulation is a permissible restriction due to public safety concerns at recreation sites. | Yes, it destroys the right under Peruta. |
| Can the Corps regulate handguns on its property consistent with Heller and Peruta? | Corps cannot ban self-defense-carry outright on its lands. | As proprietor, it can impose restrictions and designate sensitive places. | Regulation invalid; rights cannot be banned outright. |
| What is the scope of the injunctive relief? | Judgment should enjoin enforcement nationwide. | Injunction should be tailored to plaintiffs and limited to Idaho. | Injunction limited to Corps property in Idaho. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (established core right to self-defense and limits on gun restrictions)
- Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014) (right to carry includes outside-the-home self-defense; rare laws destroy the right)
- Chovan v. United States, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (two-step approach: determine burden on protected conduct and apply scrutiny)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (sliding-scale scrutiny based on proximity to core right)
- Nordyke v. King, 681 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012) (proprietor-regulation analysis; distinguishes whether burden is on displays or self-defense)