Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Federal District Court Upholds D.C.'s Onerous Registration Regime

Friday, May 16, 2014

Following the Supreme Court's Landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, D.C. enacted several new gun control laws that prohibited the possession of so-called "assault weapons", prohibited possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, created handgun rationing, generally required the registration of all firearms, and required that registrations be renewed every three years.  Shortly after the earliest of these new laws were enacted, Dick Anthony Heller and several other plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit challenging the provisions in the NRA supported case Heller v. District of Columbia, commonly referred to as Heller II.    

All of the challenged laws were initially upheld by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  That decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  The circuit court's opinion upheld the lower court's decision on "assault weapons", magazines, and the handgun registration requirement, but remanded for more fact-finding on the claims relating to the registration requirement for long guns, handgun rationing, the burdensome registration procedures, and the requirement to reregister firearms every three years.  Yesterday, Judge James E. Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion addressing the claims remanded by the circuit court. 

Judge Boasberg's recitation of D.C. murder statistics from the 1990's and his claim that "[t]he District of Columbia knows gun violence" in the opening lines of the opinion made it clear from the outset that the plaintiffs' legal arguments were going to be drowned out by the dubious mantra that any type of gun control is bound to promote public safety.  The irony of quoting statistics of high crime rates that existed before D.C. was forced to repeal its ban on all handguns apparently was lost on Judge Boasberg, as was the fact crime in D.C. has continued to decline after D.C. residents' right to possess handguns was restored in 2008. 

After this ominous introduction, Judge Boasberg determined that the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny was "intermediate scrutiny", which requires that the District can show that the challenged laws are "substantially related to an important governmental objective" and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that objective.  This might seem like it would require some real justification from the District for passing the laws.  Nevertheless, the court quickly dispelled that notion by finding that mere opinion evidence of the District's "experts" (whether or not backed by empirical data) could fulfill the requirement the challenged laws be "substantially related" to the District's important interests in public safety, and that the court would not strike down the laws as long as the District's predictions about the effect of the laws were "reasonable." 

With this weakened form of "intermediate scrutiny" as the standard, Judge Boasberg began his analysis by looking at the long gun registration requirement.  The plaintiffs were able to discredit much of the District's empirical evidence on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of gun registration, but the court nonetheless upheld the requirement mostly on the opinions offered by the District's  "experts," like D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier. 

Judge Boasberg's willingness to stretch to find D.C.'s laws constitutional was perhaps most apparent in his reasoning for upholding the requirement that registrants bring each firearm they wish to register to the police station for inspection.  The Judge first admits that the District put on no evidence showing how this requirement is substantially related to the District's public safety objectives.  Since the District had the burden of showing that the law is substantially related, seemingly at least this portion of the registration requirement should have failed.  Nevertheless, the court upheld this requirement because it made a "common-sense inference" from testimony supporting a different aspect of the registration requirement.  How such an inference by the court can meet the District's burden of showing a "substantial relationship" is unclear.   

Continuing the trend of treating the right to keep and bear arms differently from all other constitutional rights, the court also upheld the District's requirement that a registrant must pass an exam before registering any firearms.  Most these days would consider a competency test for the exercise of any of the rights protected by the First Amendment or the right to vote unthinkable, but such tests were deemed constitutional, at least in the District, when it comes to Second Amendment rights. 

While upholding the registration requirements in their entirety required an unusual degree of deference to the D.C. Council in the face of a fundamental right, Judge Boasberg's discussion of the handgun rationing provision, which limits registrants to only one handgun registration in a 30 day period, is perhaps even more troubling.  In upholding the rationing provision, the court found that "the District must respect the right of each resident to possess a handgun . . . for self-defense" and "[w]hile one or two firearms may be necessary for such purposes, a large collection of weapons is not."  Although D.C. law limits applicants to registering only one handgun each month, Judge Boasberg seemed willing to endorse the constitutionality of laws that would restrict individuals to possessing only one or two firearms at any given time.    

While the decision is to be appealed, one lesson that can be learned from Judge Boasberg, an Obama appointee, is the importance of electing a president and senators who will appoint and confirm judges that respect the right to keep and bear arms as much as any other constitutional right.  Your NRA-ILA will keep you informed of future developments in this case and in the ongoing fight for judicial recognition of the Second Amendment.

TRENDING NOW
National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

On January 3rd, Congressman Richard Hudson (R-N.C.8th) introduced H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which simply allows lawful firearm carriers from any state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state. The bill ...

Your Members of Congress Need to Hear from You on the Hearing Protection Act of 2017

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

Your Members of Congress Need to Hear from You on the Hearing Protection Act of 2017

On Monday, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) – joined by co-sponsors Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rand Paul (R-KY) – introduced S. 59, the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 (HPA). Similar legislation was introduced in the ...

Supreme Court Asked to Review California’s Restrictive Carry Regime

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

Supreme Court Asked to Review California’s Restrictive Carry Regime

On Thursday, the NRA-supported case Peruta v. California took an important step towards restoring the right to bear arms in California.  The plaintiffs in the case, California gun owners and the California Rifle and Pistol ...

Alert: WA State Proposes Draconian Gun Ban Bills

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

Alert: WA State Proposes Draconian Gun Ban Bills

Inspired, perhaps, by Oscar Wilde (“Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess”), Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has announced two new sweeping gun control bills, with Sen. David Frockt (D-Seattle) and Rep. ...

The NRA Bids Farewell to Roy Innis, Civil Rights Champion: June 6, 1934 – Jan. 8, 2017

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

The NRA Bids Farewell to Roy Innis, Civil Rights Champion: June 6, 1934 – Jan. 8, 2017

America lost a civil rights icon and a true free thinker with the death of Roy Innis on Jan. 8. For the NRA, his departure was personal. Mr. Innis served on the NRA’s Board of ...

Jeff Sessions’ Devotion to the Constitution Shines Through in Contentious Confirmation Hearing

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

Jeff Sessions’ Devotion to the Constitution Shines Through in Contentious Confirmation Hearing

On January 10 and 11, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held the confirmation hearing for President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for United States Attorney General, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Throughout his distinguished career in public service, ...

Increase in Violent Crime: National Trend Driven by Local Politics?

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

Increase in Violent Crime: National Trend Driven by Local Politics?

The FBI released its Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report earlier this week and the bad news is that violent crime increased for the second consecutive year.

NRA Applauds the Introduction of the Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367

News  

Hunting  

Monday, January 9, 2017

NRA Applauds the Introduction of the Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367

FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded Congressmen Jeff Duncan (SC) and John Carter (TX-31) on Monday for introducing the Hearing Protection Act, an important bill that gives gun owners and sportsmen ...

Gun Shy Professor Claims Need to Counter Campus Carry

News  

Friday, January 6, 2017

Gun Shy Professor Claims Need to Counter Campus Carry

Do you look back on your college years and remember the impassioned debates, when disagreements over the Periodic Table of Elements, theories of supply and demand, or the status of Pluto as a planet could ...

California: Pre-Litigation Demand Letter sent to DOJ opposing “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” Regulations

Monday, January 9, 2017

California: Pre-Litigation Demand Letter sent to DOJ opposing “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” Regulations

Today, NRA and CRPA’s legal team submitted a joint-letter to DOJ demanding that DOJ withdraw their regulations as a violation of the authority granted under the law.  NRA and CRPA’s legal team also submitted a ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.