Skip to content

Appendix B: Lower Court Approvals of Gun Regulations Post Heller

Case NameCourtHoldingLevel of ScrutinyDisposition
United States v. Rene E. , 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009)First CircuitBan on juvenile possession of firearms did not violate the Second Amendment.Unspecified. Court refuses to use a particular standard and just clarifies that scrutiny should be more strict than rational review: “The Heller Court did not identify a standard of review for regulations that restrict Second Amendment rights, apart from rejecting rational basis review and ‘interest-balancing.’” Id. at 11 n. 4.Approve
United States v. Booker, 644 F. 3d 12 (1st Cir. 2011). First CircuitProhibiting persons convicted of domestic violence from possessing firearms for life was upheldUnspecified. Court refuses to use term “intermediate scrutiny,” instead applying: “some form of ‘strong showing,’ necessitating a substantial relationship between the restriction and an important governmental objective.” Id. at 25.Approve
Williams v. Puerto Rico, 910 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.P.R. 2012).District of Puerto RicoThe requirement to request payments and documentation regarding background, health, and character as a condition of gun ownership did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 397. Approve
Commonwealth v. McGowan, 464 Mass. 232 (2013). Massachusetts Supreme CourtA statute allowing a licensed gun owner to keep a loaded firearm in his home for self-defense and preventing those who are unlicensed from gaining access to guns was constitutional. Rational basis, claiming the statute falls outside scope of Second Amendment. Id. at 244.Approve
Chief of Police of City of Worcester v. Holden, 470 Mass. 845 (2015). Massachusetts Supreme CourtA “suitable person” standard for eligibility to obtain a concealed weapon license did not violate the Second Amendment.Rational basis. Id. at 853.Approve
Gendreau v. Canario, 188 F. Supp. 3d 140 (D.R.I. 2016).District of Rhode IslandA town’s requirement that there be proof of a need for a concealed weapon permit did not violate the Second Amendment. None specified because statute falls outside scope of Second Amendment and is presumptively lawful. Id. at 144-45.Approve
United States v. DeCastro, 682 F. 3d 160 (2d Cir. 2012). Second CircuitThe prohibition against transporting firearms from outside of a state to an instate residence did not substantially burden the defendant’s Second Amendment right to own a firearm for defense of the home.Rational basis. Id. at 169.Approve
Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012).Second CircuitNew York law requiring a showing of “proper cause” as a condition to obtain a full-carry concealed handgun license did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 96.Approve
Kwang v. Bloomberg, 723 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2013).Second CircuitCity’s $340 residential handgun license fee did not violate Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 168.Approve
Aron v. Becker, 48 F. Supp. 3d 347 (N.D.N.Y. 2014). Northern District of New YorkNew York Penal Law Article 400, allowing denial of pistol permits “for good cause” and requiring good moral character, did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 371.Approve
NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of N.Y., 86 F. Supp. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), appeal filed (2d Cir. Mar. 3, 2015).Southern District of New YorkNew York statute requirement that handguns transported to and from shooting ranges must be unloaded, in a locked container, with ammunition carried separately, did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 260.Approve
N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015).Second CircuitThe New York prohibition of private ownership of semiautomatic assault rifles with military style features and large-capacity magazines did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 259.Approve
People v. Perkins, 62 A.D.3d 1160 (2d Cir. 2009).Second CircuitConviction for criminal possession and use of a firearm in an assault on a victim by a defendant who was neither in his own home nor had a valid pistol permit did not violate the Second Amendment. Rational basis. Id. at 1161.Approve
Knight v. Bratton, 48 Misc. 3d 536 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015). New York Superior CourtLicensing requirements regarding handguns did not violate N.Y. State Civil Rights Law Section 4, which conferred the right to bear arms.Intermediate. Id. at 540.Approve
Hope v. State, 163 Conn. App. 36, 43 (2016).Connecticut Court of AppealsStatutory restrictions on the right to bear arms of those whom a court had adjudged a risk of harming themselves or others did not violate the Second Amendment. None, as prohibited conduct was outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at 524.Approve
United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010). Third CircuitProhibiting the possession of firearms where the individual knew that the firearm’s serial number had been obliterated, removed, or altered did not violate the Second Amendment. Intermediate. Id. at 97.Approve
Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013).Third CircuitThe requirement of permit applicants to demonstrate a “justifiable need to carry a handgun” first to police and then to a Superior Court did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 430.Approve
United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3d Cir. 2012).Third CircuitIndictment of a defendant for aiding possession of a firearm by a convicted felon did not violate the Second Amendment.None, as prohibited conduct was outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at 89.Approve
Commonwealth v. McKown, 2013 PA Super 282 (2013).Pennsylvania Superior CourtPennsylvania’s licensing requirement for a resident who wanted to carry a concealed weapon in the state did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 689.Approve
In re Wheeler, 433 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 2013).New Jersey Superior CourtThe requirement that “justifiable need” be demonstrated to support issuance of permit to carry a handgun for lawful defensive use in public places did not violate the Second Amendment. Intermediate. Id. at 754.Approve
United States v. Smith, 742 F. Supp 855 (S.D.W. Va. 2010).Southern District of West VirginiaProhibiting domestic violence misdemeanants from firearm possession per 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9) did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 864.Approve
United States v. Tooley, 468 F. App’x 357 (4th Cir. 2012). Fourth CircuitProhibiting persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing guns for life did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 359.Approve
United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011).Fourth CircuitRegulation prohibiting the carrying or possession of a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle in a national park did not violate the Second Amendment. Intermediate. Id. at 469.Approve
United States v. Staten, 666 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2011).Fourth CircuitProhibition against possession of firearms for life as applied to persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors did not violate Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 160.Approve
Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013).Fourth CircuitMaryland’s requirement that an applicant demonstrate “good and substantial reason” for the issuance of a handgun permit did not violate the Second Amendment .Intermediate. Id. at 876.Approve
United States v. Hosford, 843 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2016). Fourth CircuitStatutes regulating the commercial sale of firearms by requiring a license did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 168.Approve
Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 485, 10 A.3d 1167 (2011).Maryland Court of AppealsA statute that prohibits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun without a permit and outside one’s home did not violate the Second Amendment.None, as prohibited conduct was outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at 1171.Approve
United States v. Chester, 514 F. App’x 393 (4th Cir. 2013). Fourth CircuitA statute that prohibits possession of firearms after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 394.Approve
Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017).Fourth CircuitA Maryland statute that banned law-abiding citizens from possessing semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity detachable magazines did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 120.Approve
Nat’l Rifle Association of America, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012).Fifth CircuitFederal law prohibiting 18-20 year old adults from possessing a gun did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 207.Approve
United States v. Miller, 604 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (W.D. Tenn. 2009).Western District of TennesseeA statute prohibiting possession of guns by convicted felons did not violate the Second Amendment. Intermediate. Id. at 1168.Approve
United States v. Greeno, 679 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2012).Sixth CircuitAn enhancement of offense level, for possession of a dangerous weapon during a drug offense after being convicted, did not violate the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment did not protect possession of weapons by individuals engaged in criminal activity.None, as prohibited conduct was outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at 520.Approve
United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010). Seventh CircuitProhibiting persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing firearms for life did not violate the Second Amendment.Heightened, “strong showing.” Id. at 642.Approve
United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010).Seventh CircuitLegislation prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing firearms did not violate the Second Amendment.Heightened, “strong showing.” Id. at 683.Approve
Horsley v. Trame, 808 F.3d 1126 (7th Cir. 2015).Seventh CircuitImposing an age restriction for gun ownership did not violate the Second Amendment.None, as prohibited conduct was outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at 1134.Approve
Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Ill. , 136 S. Ct. 447 (2015).Seventh CircuitA city ordinance prohibiting the possession, sale, or manufacture of assault weapons or large-capacity magazines (those that can accept more than 10 rounds) did not violate the Second Amendment.Heightened. Id. at 411.Approve
Second Amendment Arms v. City of Chicago, 135 F. Supp.3d 743 (N.D. Ill. 2015).Northern District of IllinoisA city ordinance restricting the sale of firearms to certain city locations and imposing a $15.00 firearm registration fee did not violate the Second Amendment. Unspecified—charges dismissed because of pleading deficiencies. Id. at 768.Approve
People v. Brisco, 2012 IL App. (1 st ) 101612 (2012).Illinois Court of AppealsA statute barring felons from bearing arms was a constitutional protection of health, safety and general welfare of citizens and did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at ¶ 53.Approve
Redington v. State, 992 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Indiana Court of AppealsA firearm seizure and retention statute rationally advanced the public purpose of preventing the mentally ill from obtaining firearms and did not violate the Second Amendment. Rational basis. Id. at 832.Approve
People v. Garvin , 2013 IL App (1st) 113095, 994 N.E.2d 1076.Illinois Court of AppealsProhibiting the mentally ill from possessing firearms did not violate the Second Amendment.None, as prohibited conduct was outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at 1085.Approve
People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, ¶ 27, 2 N.E.3d 321, 329 holding modified by People v. Burns , 2015 IL 117387, ¶ 27.Illinois Supreme CourtProhibiting the possession of handguns by minors did not violate the Second Amendment, but categorical prohibition of possession and use of an operable firearm outside the home dId.None, as prohibited conduct was outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at ¶ 27.Approve
People v. Rush, 2014 IL App (1st) 123462, 19 N.E.3d 1196, 1202.Illinois Court of AppealsProhibiting a previously convicted felon from applying for a firearm owner identification card until 20 years had passed after the conviction did not violate the Second Amendment.None, as prohibited conduct was outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at ¶ 27.Approve
United States v. Bena, 664 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 2011).Eighth CircuitProhibition of firearms by those who pose “a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner or child,” 18 U.S.C. §922 (q)(8)(c)(i), is “consistent with a common-law tradition that the right to bear arms is limited to peaceable or virtuous citizens.” None, as prohibited conduct was outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at 1184.Approve
United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2008). Eighth CircuitPossession of machine guns “are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore” are “dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use.”Unspecified. Id. at 874.Approve
United States v. Dugan, 657 F.3d. 998 (9th Cir. 2011). Ninth CircuitProhibiting users of controlled substances from shipping and receiving firearms through interstate commerce did not violate the Second Amendment.Unspecified. Id.Approve
Nordyle v. King, 681 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012). Ninth CircuitA requirement that firearms be secured to prevent unauthorized use in gun show did not violate the Second Amendment.Rational basis. Id. at 1043.Approve
United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d. 1127 (9th Cir. 2013).Ninth CircuitProhibiting persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing firearms for life was constitutional on its face and did not violate the Second Amendment. Intermediate. Id. at 1139.Approve
Wilson v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2016). Ninth CircuitProhibiting the sale of firearms to any person whom the seller had a reasonable cause to believe is an unlawful user of a controlled substance did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 1092.Approve
Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014). Ninth CircuitSan Francisco’s legislation requiring that handgun storage is in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock, and its prohibition of the sale of hollow-point bullets within the city, did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 965.Approve
Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015).Ninth CircuitIn reviewing the denial of a preliminary injunction banning the use of large-capacity magazines, the Court of Appeals held that the city was permitted to rely upon evidence that showed that “the use of large-capacity magazines results in more gunshots fired, results in more gunshot wounds per victim, and increases the lethality of gunshot injuries”; that the ban was likely to survive intermediate scrutiny and be upheld on the merits; and that the district court’s denial of the preliminary junction should be affirmed.Intermediate. Id. at 997.Approve
Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F. 3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016).Ninth CircuitA town may condition the grant of a permit to carry a concealed weapon outside of an individual’s home, business and land on a showing of good cause without violating the Second Amendment. Intermediate. Id. at 942.Approve
Silvester v. Harris, 843 F.3d 816, 821 (9th Cir. 2016).Ninth CircuitA law requiring a ten-day waiting period for gun sales was upheld as necessary to provide buyer background checks pursuant scrutiny and, for buyer, “second thoughts that might prevent gun violence.” Intermediate. Id. at 821.Approve
People v. Flores, 169 Cal. App. 4th 568 (2008).California Court of AppealsProhibiting misdemeanor offenders from owning firearms did not violate the Second Amendment.A “mid-level” standard of scrutiny. Id. at 577 n. 5.Approve
People v. Jason K., 188 Cal. App. 4th 1545 (2010). California Court of AppealsRequiring a finding that a patient admitted into a mental facility would not be likely to use firearms safely under a “preponderance of the evidence” versus the higher “clear and convincing evidence” standard, did not violate the Second Amendment. The court determined it did not need to apply a standard of scrutiny because the patient did not challenge the constitutionality of the statute. Id. at 1555.Approve
State v. Christian, 354 Or. 22, 46, 307 P.3d 429 (2013).Supreme Court of OregonRegulation of the possession and use of firearms in public places did not violate the Second Amendment. Intermediate. Id. at 444.Approve
State v. Jorgenson, 179 Wash. 2d 145, 312 P.3d 960 (2013).Supreme Court of WashingtonJudicial finding of probable cause that a person released on bond had committed a serious offense and prohibited such person from firearms possession, did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 162.Approve
People v. Brown, 227 Cal. App. 4th 451, 468, 173 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812, 825 (2014), as modified on denial of reh’g (July 21, 2014).California Court of AppealsBan on possessing shotguns less than 26 inches long did not violate the Second Amendment.Rational basis. Id. at 827.Approve
United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2010).Tenth CircuitDefendant’s conviction of firearms possession while under a domestic protection order did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 802.Approve
Peterson v. LaCabe, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Colo. 2011), aff’d on other grounds sub nom. Peterson v. Martinez , 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013).District of ColoradoA requirement that an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed handgun must be a resident of Colorado did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 1167.Approve
Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 790 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1486 (2016).Tenth CircuitRegulation prohibiting storage and carrying of guns on USPS property did not violate the Second Amendment. Intermediate. Id. at 1126.Approve
United States v. White, 593 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2010). Eleventh CircuitA statutory prohibition against possession of firearms by persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence did not violate the Second Amendment. None, because law is presumptively lawful. Id. at 1206.Approve
Georgia Carry Ovg. Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2012). Eleventh CircuitThe Second Amendment did not provide a right to carry a firearm at a place of worship against the owner’s wishes.None, as prohibited conduct was outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Id. at 1261 n. 34.Approve
Georgia Carry Ovg., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 788 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015).Eleventh CircuitProhibiting possession of loaded firearms or ammunitions at the Army Corps’ water resource development project did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 1321.Approve
Norman v. State, No. SC15-650, 2017 WL 823613 (Fla. Mar. 2, 2017).Florida ?Florida’s prohibition of open-carry firearms while permitting concealed-carry weapons did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id.Approve
Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of Florida, 180 So. 3d. 137 (Fla. 2015). Florida Supreme CourtThe prohibition of firearms in university’s housing was authorized by law, consistent with Heller , and not preempted by firearms regulation.Unspecified. Id. at 156.Approve
Smith v. U.S., 20 A.3d 759 (D.C. 2011).District of Columbia Supreme CourtThe right to use arms in defense of the home cannot justify carrying a loaded firearm in a car on a public street on the way to a wife’s apartment. Unspecified. Id. at 764.Approve
Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011). District of Columbia CircuitThe prohibition of assault weapons and magazines holding more than ten rounds did not violate the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 1256.Approve
New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc., Inc., v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015). Second CircuitNew York law prohibiting the possession of a magazine for a firearm loaded with more than seven rounds and the specific prohibition on the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615 violated the Second Amendment . Intermediate. Id. at 264.Disapprove
Ezell v. City of Chicago, 846 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2017). Seventh CircuitCity zoning regulations restricting commercial shooting ranges and creating distancing restrictions, and regulation barring anyone under 18 from entering a shooting range, violated Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 892.Disapprove
Gowder v. City of Chicago, 923 F. Supp.2d 1110 (N.D. Ill. 2012). Northern District of IllinoisOrdinance barring non-violent misdemeanant from use of firearm in home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.Intermediate. Id. at 1124.Disapprove
Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 60 F. Supp. 3d 1120 (D. Idaho 2014). District of IdahoArmy regulations that ban carrying a loaded firearm for self-defense and ban carrying an unloaded firearm along with ammunition violated the Second Amendment. Strict scrutiny is implied but not stated. Id. at 1125.Disapprove
Grace v. District of Columbia, 187 F. Supp. 3d 124 (D.D.C. 2016).District of District of ColumbiaCourt granted a preliminary injunction to prohibit the District of Columbia from violating the Second Amendment by denying concealed carry licenses.Strict. Id. at 143.Disapprove
Morin v. Leahy, 862 F.3d 123 (1st Cir. 2017)First CircuitMassachusetts law prohibiting issuance of license to persons convicted of use or possession of weapons or ammunition did not violate the Second Amendment, if such persons possessed guns in their home. Unspecified. Id. at 128.Approve
Fortson v. Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, 852 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, No. 16-8871 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017).Ninth CircuitCalifornia’s 10-year ban on possession of firearms after a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction did not violate the Second Amendment. Intermediate. Id. at 1193.Approve
Bauer v. Becerra, 858 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2017)Ninth CircuitCalifornia regulations using a portion of firearm sale fees to fund a firearms-related law enforcement program violated the Second Amendment. Intermediate. Id. at 1222.Disapprove
Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017)District of Columbia CircuitD.C. law limiting the issuance of concealed-carry licenses to those with a special need for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. Unspecified. Id.Disapprove