## Facts

- After the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in *District of Columbia v. Heller* invalidated D.C.’s handgun ban and certain storage rules, the District of Columbia enacted the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 (FRA).
- The FRA kept and modified D.C.’s firearm-registration framework and added newer requirements, including (among others) registration for long guns, a requirement to re-register at set intervals (three years), and a limit on purchasing more than one pistol within a 30-day period.
- The FRA also barred registration of certain firearms defined as “assault weapons” and prohibited possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
- Dick Anthony Heller and other individuals challenged the statute, arguing that the registration requirements and the assault-weapon and large-capacity magazine restrictions violated the Second Amendment.
- Plaintiffs also argued that, apart from the Constitution, the District lacked authority under Congress’s delegation of legislative power (via the Home Rule Act) to enact the challenged provisions.
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment for the District, and the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

## Issues

1. Did the District have authority under its congressionally delegated legislative power to enact the challenged firearm-registration provisions and bans?
2. Do the District’s firearm-registration requirements violate the Second Amendment?
3. Do the District’s bans on registering “assault weapons” and possessing magazines holding more than 10 rounds violate the Second Amendment?
4. What constitutional test and level of scrutiny apply to firearm regulations that burden Second Amendment conduct but do not eliminate the ability to keep operable firearms for self-defense in the home?

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held the District acted within its delegated authority to enact the challenged provisions.
- The court adopted a two-step approach to Second Amendment claims: (1) determine whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment; and, if it does, (2) apply an appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.
- The court applied intermediate scrutiny to the challenged provisions, reasoning that they did not amount to a total ban on possession of firearms for lawful self-defense in the home.
- The court upheld the District’s prohibitions on “assault weapons” and on magazines holding more than 10 rounds as consistent with the Second Amendment under intermediate scrutiny.
- The court upheld some registration requirements on the existing record, but remanded several newer (“novel”) registration-related requirements for further proceedings because the evidentiary record was insufficient to evaluate those provisions under intermediate scrutiny.
- Disposition: affirmed in part and remanded in part.
- Judge Kavanaugh dissented in part, disagreeing with the use of tiers of scrutiny and concluding that the challenged bans were inconsistent with *Heller*’s understanding of the Second Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home, but the right is subject to regulation.
- A court may analyze Second Amendment challenges in two steps: first determine whether protected conduct is burdened, then apply an appropriate level of scrutiny to the challenged regulation.
- Intermediate scrutiny may apply when a firearm regulation burdens Second Amendment activity but leaves law-abiding citizens with meaningful ability to possess firearms for self-defense.
- Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show an important governmental interest (such as public safety and crime control) and a substantial connection between the regulation and that interest.
- When the government relies on intermediate scrutiny to defend newer regulatory measures, the record must contain enough evidence to allow a court to evaluate whether the measure materially advances the asserted interests.

## Conclusion

In *Heller v. District of Columbia* (2011), the D.C. Circuit held that the District had authority to enact its post-*Heller* gun regulations, upheld the bans on “assault weapons” and magazines over 10 rounds, and sustained some registration provisions, but sent several newer registration-related requirements back to the district court because the evidentiary record was not developed enough to decide whether those requirements satisfied intermediate scrutiny.


Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (2011)