After a several-year delay, we finally have an opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia upholding the District’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (guns that look scary), and “large capacity magazines.” This is consistent with recent opinions from New York and Connecticut upholding similar laws.
Here is how the opinion opens.
The District of Columbia knows gun violence. Notorious for a time as the “murder capital” of the United States, it recorded over 400 homicides annually in the early 1990s – more than one for every 1500 residents. While safety in the District has improved markedly in this millennium, residents will not soon forget the violence of the more recent past: the wounding of seven children outside the National Zoo on Easter Monday in 2000, the triple murder at Colonel Brooks’ Tavern in 2003, the five killed in the South Capitol Street shootings in 2010, and the twelve shot to death inside the Washington Navy Yard only a few months ago. These number just a few of the lives lost to guns in our city’s recent memory.
Recall that the D.C. Circuit in Heller II in 2011 (see here, here, here, here, here) remanded this case in 2011 for further proceedings about the burden imposed by the gun law.
The D.C. Circuit therefore vacated the judgment below and remanded the case for this Court, Judge Urbina having since retired, “to develop a more thorough factual record” and so that the District could present “some meaningful evidence” to justify these laws. Id. at 1259-60 (quoting Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 664-68 (1994)).
Three-plus years later, here is the key analysis:
The Second Amendment requires the District to justify its firearm-registration requirements by presenting substantial evidence that they will achieve important governmental interests and that they are narrowly tailored to such ends. The Court ultimately concludes that the government has met that burden and that the regulations pass constitutional scrutiny.
The people of this city, acting through their elected representatives, have sought to combat gun violence and promote public safety. The Court finds that they have done so in a constitutionally permissible manner.
The crux of the case come down to whether the District must show “some meaningful evidence” that their laws ‘can reasonably be expected to promote’ an important government interest.” Heller counters that the District must show that the laws “actually achieve the governmental interest to a significant degree.” The former is a low burden, the latter is a high burden. The court agrees with the District’s understanding of the burden.
This may appear a subtle point. But because it will set the terms of the Court’s merits analysis, it is worth considering in detail. There are essentially two issues in contention here. First, whether the District need only show that the D.C. Council “could reasonably believe that the laws” would serve its important interests or if it must establish that the laws “will have th[o]se effects.” Def. Reply at 2; Pl. Reply at 6 (emphasis added). And second, whether the District may meet its burden by citing to sources other than empirical data or if it is limited exclusively to statistical evidence. Both parties have excised snippets of language from prior cases that seem to support their side over the other. At the end of the day, however, the District has the better of the argument on both issues.
…
This may appear a subtle point. But because it will set the terms of the Court’s merits analysis, it is worth considering in detail. There are essentially two issues in contention here. First, whether the District need only show that the D.C. Council “could reasonably believe that the laws” would serve its important interests or if it must establish that the laws “will have th[o]se effects.” Def. Reply at 2; Pl. Reply at 6 (emphasis added). And second, whether the District may meet its burden by citing to sources other than empirical data or if it is limited exclusively to statistical evidence. Both parties have excised snippets of language from prior cases that seem to support their side over the other. At the end of the day, however, the District has the better of the argument on both issues.
Once this burden is set, the outcome becomes very easy.