Stephen Kolbe v. Lawrence Hogan, Jr.
849 F.3d 114
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 14, 2012 (Sandy Hook) and other mass shootings, semiautomatic "military-style" rifles (e.g., AR-15 variants) and large-capacity detachable magazines were used; Maryland enacted the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (FSA) banning specified "assault weapons" and detachable magazines >10 rounds.
- The FSA forbids possession, sale, transfer, and purchase of enumerated assault long guns and defined "copycat" weapons, and prohibits manufacture/sale/transfer/purchase of detachable magazines >10 rounds; limited grandfathering and law‑enforcement exemptions apply.
- Plaintiffs (individuals, dealers, and associations) challenged the FSA on Second Amendment grounds (assault weapons and large-capacity magazines), and on Fourteenth Amendment equal protection (retired-officer exemption) and due process/vagueness (ban on "copies").
- District court assumed the banned items were Second Amendment‑protected, applied intermediate scrutiny, and upheld the FSA; a 3‑judge 4th Cir. panel later applied strict scrutiny and remanded, but the court granted rehearing en banc.
- The en banc 4th Circuit affirmed the district court: (1) held that the banned weapons and large‑capacity magazines are not protected because they are "like M‑16 rifles" — "weapons most useful in military service"; (2) alternatively, held that even if protected, the FSA survives intermediate scrutiny; (3) rejected the equal protection and vagueness challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether banned assault weapons and large‑capacity magazines are protected "arms" under the Second Amendment | Kolbe: these semiautomatic rifles and detachable LCMs are in common use for lawful purposes (self‑defense, sport) and thus fall within Heller's protection | State: many banned items are "like M‑16s" and have military design/features making them most useful in military service and outside Second Amendment protection | Majority: Not protected — they are "like M‑16 rifles" (weapons most useful in military service); affirming dismissal on that ground |
| If the items are protected, what level of scrutiny applies and does FSA survive | Kolbe: ban implicates core in‑home self‑defense rights; strict scrutiny should apply and FSA fails | State: even assuming protection, the FSA does not severely burden core self‑defense (handguns and many other arms remain available) so intermediate scrutiny applies and the law is a reasonable fit to public‑safety goals | Held alternatively: intermediate scrutiny applies and FSA survives (reasonable fit to compelling/substantial public‑safety interest) |
| Equal protection — retired law enforcement exemption | Plaintiffs: exemption treats similarly situated persons differently without justification | State: retired officers are differently situated due to training, qualification, and experience; exemption rationally relates to safety/regulatory aims | Held: plaintiffs failed to show similarly situated class — equal protection claim dismissed |
| Vagueness — prohibition on "copies" of enumerated weapons | Plaintiffs: term "copies" is vague and invites arbitrary enforcement | State: statutory language, Attorney General opinion and State Police guidance give an administrable standard (interchangeable internal components/function) | Held: term "copies" not unconstitutionally vague; vagueness challenge rejected |
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; excludes "M‑16 rifles and the like")
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the States)
- Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016) (per curiam) (reiterating Heller principles that common‑use inquiry is central and that weapons not in existence at founding may be protected)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (statutory knowledge requirement for machinegun registration; discussion of AR‑15 as civilian version of M‑16)
- Kolbe v. Hogan (en banc 4th Cir.), 813 F.3d 160 (2016) (vacated panel opinion referenced; en banc decision affirmed district court rejecting plaintiffs’ challenges)
- N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015) (upheld state assault‑weapon and large‑capacity magazine bans under intermediate scrutiny)