Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffappeal
plaintiffregulation

Related Cases

People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971
View Case »
Butler v. State of Mich., 352 U.S. 380, 77 S.Ct. 524, 1 L.Ed.2d 412
View Case »
Berg v. United States, 141 S.Ct. 605 (Mem), 208 L.Ed.2d 195
View Case »
People v. Case, 42 N.Y.2d 98, 365 N.E.2d 872, 396 N.Y.S.2d 841, 87 A.L.R.3d 77
View Case »
People v. Allison, 55 Cal.App.5th 449, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 570, 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,312, 2020 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,750
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 399 U.S.App.D.C. 314

Facts

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, which invalidated certain District of Columbia firearm laws, the D.C. Council enacted the Firearms Registration Amendment Act (FRA) to comply with the ruling. The plaintiffs, who included individuals denied registration of firearms under the new law, argued that the registration requirements and prohibitions on certain firearms violated their Second Amendment rights. The district court upheld the law, stating it was within the District's authority and did not violate constitutional rights.

The district court held the challenged laws do not exceed the District's authority under local law because they are usual and reasonable police regulations within the meaning of the 1906 Act.

Issue

Did the District of Columbia have the authority to enact the Firearms Registration Amendment Act, and do its provisions violate the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs?

The plaintiffs argue the District's authority to regulate firearms remains limited by the 1906 Act, and that Act prevents the District from promulgating the gun laws challenged here.

Rule

The court applied intermediate scrutiny to determine whether the registration requirements and prohibitions on certain firearms impinged upon Second Amendment rights, requiring meaningful evidence to justify any predictive judgments.

We accordingly adopt, as have other circuits, a two-step approach to determining the constitutionality of the District's gun laws.

Analysis

The court found that the basic requirement for handgun registration was longstanding and presumptively lawful, thus not impinging upon Second Amendment rights. However, it determined that several other registration requirements were novel and imposed a significant burden on the right to keep and bear arms, necessitating further examination under intermediate scrutiny.

The requirements that are not longstanding, which include, in addition to those listed in the prior paragraph, all the requirements as applied to long guns, also affect the Second Amendment right because they are not de minimis.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling in part, upheld the basic registration requirement, and remanded other provisions for further factual development.

We hold the basic registration requirements are constitutional only as applied to handguns.

Who won?

The District of Columbia prevailed in part because the court upheld the authority of the District to regulate firearms and found certain provisions constitutional.

We agree with the District that it was authorized to enact the challenged gun laws.

You must be