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
U.S. Politicians Cheer New Zealand Gun Confiscation

News  

Friday, March 22, 2019

U.S. Politicians Cheer New Zealand Gun Confiscation

American gun owners have once again been reminded that the ultimate goal of U.S. gun control advocates is firearms bans and confiscation. Since the heinous terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, American anti-gun politicians, activists, ...

Iowa: House Passes Bill to Improve Hunting Opportunities

Hunting  

Friday, March 22, 2019

Iowa: House Passes Bill to Improve Hunting Opportunities

On March 20th, the Iowa state House of Representatives voted 57-40 to pass House File 716 to improve hunting opportunities in Iowa by expanding the types of cartridges that may be used for hunting.  HF 716 will ...

Governor Bevin Signs NRA-backed Constitutional Carry

News  

Monday, March 11, 2019

Governor Bevin Signs NRA-backed Constitutional Carry

The NRA applauds Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin for signing Senate Bill 150 into law, an NRA-backed bill that fully recognizes the constitutional right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a concealed firearm.

NRA Praises Vermont Superior Court Decision on Magazine Bans

News  

Thursday, March 21, 2019

NRA Praises Vermont Superior Court Decision on Magazine Bans

NRA applauds the Vermont Superior Court for allowing a lawsuit challenging the State's ban on standard capacity magazines to proceed. 

Activist Court Turns the Law Designed to Protect the Firearm Industry from Frivolous Lawsuits on its Head

News  

Friday, March 15, 2019

Activist Court Turns the Law Designed to Protect the Firearm Industry from Frivolous Lawsuits on its Head

On Thursday, the Connecticut Supreme Court created a dangerous new exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a strong safeguard for our right to keep and bear arms.  

Illinois Court Throws Out Deerfield Gun Ban

News  

Friday, March 22, 2019

Illinois Court Throws Out Deerfield Gun Ban

NRA applauds Illinois court ruling throwing out Village of Deerfield's ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines.

Alaska State Commission for Human Rights Director Attacks Human’s Rights

News  

Friday, March 22, 2019

Alaska State Commission for Human Rights Director Attacks Human’s Rights

The Last Frontier is also one of the last places one expects to find rights-trampling government officials. The state’s strong libertarian streak is one of the reasons a recent report regarding the authoritarian behavior of an official ...

Pro-Gun Senators Introduce Bill to Prohibit Discrimination in Financial Services

News  

Friday, March 22, 2019

Pro-Gun Senators Introduce Bill to Prohibit Discrimination in Financial Services

On March 14, pro-gun Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced S. 821 the Freedom Financing Act, a bill to prohibit discrimination against the firearms industry in the provision of financial services.

Legacy Media Push New Zealand Gun Confiscation Using Lies about Australian Ban

News  

Friday, March 22, 2019

Legacy Media Push New Zealand Gun Confiscation Using Lies about Australian Ban

The ongoing cheerleading effort by the international press in furtherance of the New Zealand government’s gun confiscation plans is enough to make any journalist with even a shred of objectivity blush. Worse, some outlets have ...

Utah: Self-Defense Bill Heads to the Governor’s Desk as Multiple Gun Control Bills Fail at the End of Session

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Utah: Self-Defense Bill Heads to the Governor’s Desk as Multiple Gun Control Bills Fail at the End of Session

The Utah Legislature has adjourned from its 2019 Legislative session.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

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.