167 F. Supp. 3d 86
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (three individuals and the Second Amendment Foundation) challenge D.C.’s concealed-carry licensing scheme, targeting (a) its "may-issue"/permissive structure and (b) the statutory/regulatory "good reason/other proper reason" requirement for concealed-carry licenses.
- D.C. law allows the Chief of Police to issue a two-year concealed-carry license if an applicant shows "good reason to fear injury…or any other proper reason" and is a "suitable person." Regulations require evidence of specific threats or certain employment to satisfy those criteria.
- Plaintiffs allege denials (or futility of applying) under the good-reason requirement and seek a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of that requirement against them and requiring issuance of licenses to applicants meeting objective criteria (e.g., suitability, residency).
- A prior preliminary injunction issued by another judge was vacated by the D.C. Circuit for procedural assignment defects; the case was reassigned and the present motion for preliminary injunction followed full briefing.
- The district court assumed, without deciding, for the injunction-stage analysis that the Second Amendment protects public carry, but applied intermediate scrutiny to the challenged provisions and concluded Plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.
- The court denied the preliminary injunction: Plaintiffs established irreparable harm (alleged constitutional deprivation) but failed to show likelihood of success, that equities tipped in their favor, or that an injunction was in the public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.C.’s permissive "may-issue" licensing and "good reason" requirement violate the Second Amendment | Wrenn: the may-issue discretion plus good-reason predicate unlawfully restricts public-carry rights | D.C.: the scheme advances public safety and crime prevention; discretion and criteria are lawful | Court: assumed public-carry is protected but held Plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success; intermediate scrutiny applies |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny for public-carry licensing | Plaintiffs: may favor strict scrutiny or treat law as prior restraint | Defendants: intermediate scrutiny is appropriate; prior-restraint doctrine inapplicable | Court: applied intermediate scrutiny (following D.C. Circuit and other Circuits) |
| Applicability of prior-restraint or "rationing" doctrines to good-reason regimes | Plaintiffs: licensing is an unconstitutional prior restraint or unlawful rationing of rights | Defendants: prior-restraint is a First Amendment doctrine inapplicable here; scheme is not unlawful rationing | Court: rejected prior-restraint and rationing arguments as inapplicable or unpersuasive |
| Whether the District’s evidence and fit satisfy intermediate scrutiny | Plaintiffs: scheme cannot survive any heightened scrutiny; insufficient deference to legislature | D.C.: public-safety and crime-prevention are important interests and the rules are substantially related to them; offered evidence and legislative record | Court: Plaintiffs failed to rebut Defendants’ evidence or show the scheme is unlikely to survive intermediate scrutiny; factor favors Defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (recognizes individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (adopts two-step Second Amendment framework; intermediate scrutiny in some contexts)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 801 F.3d 264 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (applies intermediate scrutiny and discusses means-ends review for gun regulations)
- Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (upholds "proper cause" public-carry requirement under intermediate scrutiny)
- Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) (upholds New Jersey "justifiable need" requirement; applies intermediate scrutiny)
- Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) (upholds Maryland "good and substantial reason" permit rule under intermediate scrutiny)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (struck down Illinois’s flat ban on public carry; distinguished from may-issue schemes)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (sets the standard for granting preliminary injunctions)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (describes how alleged constitutional violations relate to irreparable-harm and preliminary injunction analysis)