The Washington D.C. District Court has handed down its opinion in Heller v. D.C. [pdf]. Joshua Blackman has an analysis that renders any of mine redundant.
Following the Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller, the District did its absolute best to comply with the Court’s ruling as little as possible. Though citizens were theoretically allowed to register handguns, the process involves jumping some pretty substantial hurdles. Dick Heller brought suit on three points:
- the District’s registration scheme in general,
- the ban on “assault weapons,” and
- restrictions on magazine capacity.
The District Court rejected strict scrutiny, finding that all three measures met with intermediate scrutiny.
On the first point, Urbina rejected the idea that, “these registration requirements, both individually and in the aggregate, are so unduly burdensome that they cannot withstand heightened scrutiny.” Citing other post-Heller challenges, he found that, “because registration requirements only regulate, rather than prohibiting, the possession of firearms, they do not infringe the Second Amendment right.”
Urbina found that the District’s registration scheme did not unduly burden the citizens of the District based on arguments from the defendants that the various measures in place serve the government’s interest in “accomplishing the District’s public safety goals.” (pp. 17-20)
Regarding the second two issues, the Court loosely quoted Heller in stating that, “the Second Amendment does not confer the right to use any type of firearm in self-defense.”
The Council chose to ban assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices after concluding that they are “military-style weapons of war, made for offensive military use.” Committee Report at 7. Citing a report issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the testimony of Brian Siebel, Senior Attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Council found that “assault weapons are disproportionately likely to be used by criminals” and “are not generally recognized as particularly suitable or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” Nor do assault weapons have any “legitimate use as self-defense weapons.” (pp. 22-23, citations omitted)
Looks like somebody drank the Kool-Aid. Still, Mr. Heller’s counsel made a rather fragile argument claiming that the ban on high-capacity magazines was similar to the trigger-lock requirements overturned by the Supreme Court in Heller.
Because the bans on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices do not implicate the core Second Amendment right, the court need not assess whether these laws survive intermediate scrutiny. It is worth noting, however, that even if the court were to conduct the intermediate scrutiny analysis, the plaintiffs’ claims would still fail for the same reason the claims concerning the registration requirements fail. Namely, as previously discussed, it is beyond dispute that public safety is an important — indeed, a compelling — governmental interest, and the Committee Report amply demonstrates that there is at least a substantial fit between that goal and the bans on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. (pp. 26-27)
That last part is incredibly important, and may have bearing on future cases. If other courts agree, then another Assault Weapons Ban would pass constitutional muster. So could discriminatory “may issue” permit and registration schemes.
Don’t panic yet, however. This is the District Court. When this case is appealed (and it will be), it’ll be headed for the D.C. Circuit Court. It was there that the District’s gun laws were found unconstitutional in Parker v. D.C. It’s very likely that they’ll draw a much different conclusion from Urbina’s.
If that fails, we’re off to the Supreme Court yet again. Though they used intermediate scrutiny in U.S. v. Skoien, the 7th Circuit suggested that strict scrutiny would apply to laws that implicated the “core” right protected by the 2nd Amendment. So, we’re left with a Circuit split, and guess who settles those?
My point? I’m not too surprised by the District Court’s conclusion, but neither am I particularly worried. We’ll see where it goes.
3 thoughts on “Back to the D.C. Circuit”
Some think that a 2A challenge to magazine limits was premature…
-Gene
I was more concerned that the lawsuit addressed too many points in too little detail. I’d have rather seen each of those issues brought in separate suits.
For DC residents, the most pressing issue is the ridiculous registration scheme. There are two issues that scream discrimination in it.
The first is the requirement to pass a written test in order to exercise a right. We had that with voting in the South, and it was ruled unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment should not be treated differently.
The second is the requirement that the applicant not “suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly.” Of course, no standard is given as to what qualifies as such a physical defect, nor do we know who gets to decide that.
I didn’t feel that this was a strong case for challenging restrictions on weapon types or magazine-capacity limits, but we’ll see what happens when it hits the Circuit.
Urbina’s one out was that Heller didn’t explicitly use the word “fundamental” to describe the 2nd Amendment (though Kennedy, Scalia and Roberts seemed to take that as granted in the McDonald orals). As such, he seems to think that a broader type of scrutiny is possible. It’s very likely that future judges will disagree.
You analysis mirrors mine, I just often have to be a bit more charitable…
-Gene