## Facts

- After the Supreme Court recognized an individual Second Amendment right to keep a handgun for self-defense in the home, the District of Columbia enacted a firearm registration regime.
- The regime required registration of all firearms and imposed conditions including in-person appearance, fingerprinting, photographing, bringing the firearm to the registration office, safety training and testing on local gun laws, periodic renewal, fees, and a limit of one pistol registration per 30 days.
- In prior litigation, the D.C. Circuit upheld basic handgun registration but required further justification for several conditions and for long-gun registration.
- On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the District, upholding long-gun registration and the challenged registration conditions.
- Residents seeking to possess firearms appealed, challenging multiple provisions as unconstitutional burdens on the Second Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether D.C.’s requirement to register all firearms, including long guns, violates the Second Amendment.
2. Whether in-person appearance, fingerprinting, and photographing are sufficiently related to public safety to survive intermediate scrutiny.
3. Whether requiring registrants to bring each firearm to the registration office is constitutional under intermediate scrutiny.
4. Whether mandatory re-registration every three years is constitutional under intermediate scrutiny.
5. Whether registration fees operate as permissible cost-recovery measures or unconstitutional deterrents to exercising Second Amendment rights.
6. Whether mandated safety training and testing on D.C. firearms laws are supported by adequate evidence and properly tailored.
7. Whether the one-pistol-per-30-days registration limit is sufficiently supported by evidence of trafficking or other public-safety concerns.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment.
- The court upheld: basic registration for long guns, in-person appearance, fingerprinting and photographing, reasonable fees tied to administrative costs, and core safety-training requirements (as limited to those adequately supported).
- The court struck down: the requirement to bring each firearm to the registration office, the three-year re-registration requirement, the one-pistol-per-30-days limit, and specific training/testing components not supported by meaningful evidence.
- The invalidated provisions were treated as unconstitutional burdens on the Second Amendment under intermediate scrutiny.

## Legal Principles

- Second Amendment challenges to firearm regulations that burden, but do not destroy, the core right are assessed under intermediate scrutiny in this circuit.
- Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show an important interest (including public safety) and a substantial fit between the law and that interest, supported by meaningful, non-speculative evidence.
- Administrative requirements may be upheld when they reasonably aid identification, tracing, or enforcement and do not impose excessive burdens on lawful possession.
- Recurring or uniquely burdensome conditions that materially increase costs or risks of noncompliance require stronger evidentiary support and may fail intermediate scrutiny if benefits are marginal or unsubstantiated.
- Fees are permissible when set to defray administrative costs rather than to deter the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

## Conclusion

Applying intermediate scrutiny, the D.C. Circuit sustained D.C.’s basic firearm registration framework and several identification and safety-related measures, but invalidated multiple provisions that the District failed to justify with adequate evidence of public-safety benefits relative to their burdens on lawful firearm possession.


Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller III), 801 F.3d 264 (D.C. Cir. 2015)