Stephen Kolbe v. Lawrence Hogan, Jr.
813 F.3d 160
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Maryland’s 2013 Firearm Safety Act (FSA) banned possession of listed “assault long guns” (60+ semi‑automatic models, including AR‑15/AK variants) and prohibited manufacture/sale/transfer of detachable magazines over 10 rounds; some exceptions (e.g., active & retired law enforcement under specified conditions) and a grandfather clause applied.
- Plaintiffs (individual gun owners, retailers, and trade/advocacy organizations) sued challenging the FSA as violating the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause (retired‑officer exception), and as void for vagueness (the term “copies”).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the State, applying intermediate scrutiny and upholding the bans; it also rejected the equal‑protection and vagueness claims.
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit panel (Traxler, joined by Agee) held the bans implicate the core Second Amendment protection (home self‑defense) and concluded strict scrutiny applies; it vacated and remanded the Second Amendment rulings for strict‑scrutiny review.
- The panel affirmed the district court as to the Equal Protection challenge (upholding the retired‑officer exception) and affirmed that “copies” is not unconstitutionally vague.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FSA burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment | Kolbe et al.: bans prevent possession of commonly used semi‑automatic rifles and large‑capacity magazines for home self‑defense | State: bans regulate dangerous arms and components, and do not implicate core right | Court: banned semi‑autos and LCMs are commonly possessed for lawful purposes and implicate the Second Amendment (home self‑defense) |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny for FSA bans | Plaintiffs: bans substantially burden core right so strict scrutiny required | State: intermediate scrutiny (or other lesser means‑end review) is appropriate | Court: strict scrutiny applies because law substantially burdens the core right in the home; remanded for strict‑scrutiny analysis |
| Equal Protection — retired law enforcement exception | Plaintiffs: exception irrationally privileges retirees over similarly situated citizens | State: retired officers are materially different (training, duties, risks) and exception furthers public‑safety objectives | Panel (Agee concur): retirees are not similarly situated; exception survives equal‑protection review; affirmed |
| Vagueness — definition of “copies” | Plaintiffs: undefined term leaves owners unable to know what is prohibited | State: list of specific models plus commonsense meaning and AG/state guidance give notice | Court: statute has a plainly legitimate sweep; “copies” reasonably understood in context; not unconstitutionally vague; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the States)
- United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (two‑step framework for Second Amendment review and analogy to First Amendment scrutiny selection)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (weapons not part of ordinary military equipment or common use may fall outside Second Amendment)
- Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (applied intermediate scrutiny to semi‑auto/LCM restrictions)
- Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015) (assumed Second Amendment coverage of LCMs; applied intermediate scrutiny)
- Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015) (upheld assault‑weapons/LCM ban using a different analytical approach)
- United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussion of in‑home/out‑of‑home distinction for scrutiny)
- Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) (addressing scrutiny for regulations affecting in‑home arming)