Williams v. Puerto Rico
910 F. Supp. 2d 386
D.P.R.2012Background
- Williams and Gonzalez Lora filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2012 challenging Puerto Rico's Weapons Act as facially invalid under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking damages and §1983 relief.
- Gonzalez Lora, a law student, sought a permit to carry under section 456d in September 2011 and was denied after failing to provide three reputation witness statements, tax filing evidence, and a child-support certificate.
- Williams, an active-duty Coast Guardsman, sought a permit under section 456d in October 2011 and was denied in November 2011 for missing documents, including income tax returns and three witnesses.
- Plaintiffs allege the Act burdens the Second Amendment, discriminates in favor of officials, vests officials with unconstitutional discretion, and imposes unconstitutional filing requirements in sections 456a and 456d.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on July 12, 2012, arguing lack of standing, failure to state a §1983 claim, and constitutionality under intermediate scrutiny.
- The court applies a two-pronged Rule 12(b)(6) standard (Ashcroft v. Iqbal/Twombly) and evaluates facial challenges and standing before reaching merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge 456a | Gonzalez Lora and Williams have injury in fact from license renewal. | Plaintiffs lack ongoing injury since they already hold licenses. | Plaintiffs have standing to challenge 456a. |
| §1983 claim viability | Second Amendment rights were violated by sections 456a/456d. | License status preserves rights; permit issuance is a privilege, not a constitutional right. | Facial challenge fails; §1983 claim rejected on merits. |
| Constitutionality of 456a and 456d under intermediate scrutiny | Regulations infringe the Second Amendment and grant undue discretion. | Regulations are presumptively lawful regulatory measures under intermediate scrutiny. | Sections 456a and 456d pass intermediate scrutiny. |
| Discrimination/equal protection | Act favors officials over average citizens; violates equal protection. | Classification rationally related to legitimate government interests; rational basis review applies. | No equal protection violation; rational basis upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Supreme Court, 2008) (individual Second Amendment right to bear arms with permissible restrictions)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (Supreme Court, 2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment against states; not imperiling all regulations)
- Hightower v. City of Boston, 693 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2012) (facial challenges under Second Amendment context; prior restraint analogy rejected)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (Supreme Court, 1987) (facial challenge standard; 'no set of circumstances' test described)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 571 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2009) (strict scrutiny not required for certain 'presumptively lawful regulations')
- United States v. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., 512 U.S. 622 (Supreme Court, 1994) (deference to regulatory findings in communications cases (statutory context referenced))
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (facial challenges; plausibility standards for Second Amendment claims)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007) (pleading must cross plausibility threshold)