Heller v. District of Columbia
670 F.3d 1244 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Laws banning categories of firearms that are not the "quintessential self-defense weapon" and are associated with military use, as well as laws banning large-capacity magazines, are constitutional under intermediate scrutiny. Basic, longstanding registration requirements for handguns are presumptively lawful, while novel and more burdensome registration requirements must be justified by the government under intermediate scrutiny.
Facts:
- Following the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the District's ban on handgun possession in the home, the D.C. Council passed the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 (FRA).
- The FRA required registration of all firearms, imposing requirements such as in-person appearances, ballistics testing for pistols, fingerprinting, safety training, and a limit of registering one pistol per 30-day period.
- The FRA also prohibited the registration and possession of certain semi-automatic rifles defined as "assault weapons," such as the AR-15.
- Additionally, the law banned the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds of ammunition.
- Plaintiffs Dick Anthony Heller, William Carter, and Absalom F. Jordan, Jr. applied to register semi-automatic rifles but were denied because the weapons were classified as prohibited "assault weapons."
- Plaintiff Heller was also denied registration of a pistol because its magazine held 15 rounds.
- Plaintiff Jordan was prevented from registering two pistols he owned due to the one-pistol-per-30-days registration limit.
Procedural Posture:
- Following the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a group of plaintiffs including Dick Anthony Heller challenged the District's new Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008.
- The plaintiffs sued the District of Columbia in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (a federal trial court).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the District of Columbia, upholding both the registration requirements and the bans on 'assault weapons' and large-capacity magazines.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with the District of Columbia as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the District of Columbia's post-Heller firearm law, which bans certain semi-automatic rifles ("assault weapons") and large-capacity magazines and imposes a comprehensive registration scheme, violate the Second Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Ginsburg, Circuit Judge
No, in part. The prohibitions on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and the basic requirement to register handguns do not violate the Second Amendment, but the constitutionality of the law's novel registration requirements must be remanded for further review. The court established a two-step framework for Second Amendment challenges: first, determine if a law burdens a protected right, and second, apply the appropriate level of scrutiny. The ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines does not substantially burden the core right of self-defense, so intermediate scrutiny applies. The District's interests in crime control and officer safety are important, and the ban is substantially related to those interests. Basic handgun registration is a longstanding, presumptively lawful regulation. However, the novel registration requirements (e.g., training, ballistics, limits) and all registration for long guns burden the Second Amendment right and are subject to intermediate scrutiny, but the District failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify them, requiring a remand for further factual development.
Dissenting - Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge
Yes. The bans on semi-automatic rifles and the entire registration scheme are unconstitutional because they are not rooted in American history or tradition as required by Heller. The Supreme Court in Heller rejected balancing tests like intermediate scrutiny in favor of a test based on text, history, and tradition. There is no meaningful constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns, which Heller protected, and semi-automatic rifles, as both are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and have not traditionally been banned. Similarly, requiring registration of all lawfully possessed firearms is not a 'longstanding' regulation in the United States and is therefore an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment right.
Analysis:
This case established the dominant two-step analytical framework for Second Amendment challenges used by federal courts after Heller. It was pivotal in determining that intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, applies to major gun control regulations like bans on specific classes of firearms. This holding provided a viable path for governments to defend gun control laws by demonstrating a substantial relationship to an important public safety interest. The decision reinforces the concept that the core Second Amendment right is self-defense in the home with a common firearm, while regulations on other weapons or requirements are subject to a less exacting standard of review.
Unlock the full brief for Heller v. District of Columbia