Delaware Supreme Court Overturns Gun Ban in State Parks
In a 3-2 ruling, the state Supreme Court ruled late Thursday that two government agencies violated the Delaware Constitution by banning the possession of firearms in state forests and parks.
December 08, 2017 at 05:14 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
In a 3-2 ruling, the state Supreme Court ruled late Thursday that two government agencies violated the Delaware Constitution by banning the possession of firearms in state forests and parks.
A bare majority of the state's justices sided with gun-rights groups that argued decades-old policies of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and Department of Agriculture violated a 1987 amendment to the state constitution allowing Delaware citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside of the home, as well as for hunting.
Writing for the majority, Justice Karen L. Valihura said that unelected officials at the two agencies lacked the power to enact the broad bans, which provided only a narrow exception for hunters who obtained permission to carry guns on the state lands.
“They lack such authority because they may not pass unconstitutional laws, and the regulations completely eviscerate a core right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and family outside the home—a right this court has already recognized,” Valihura wrote in a 46-page opinion, referring to the 2014 case Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority. “As such, the regulations are unconstitutional on their face.”
The ruling scrapped a Superior Court judge's determination last year that the regulations promoted the government's goal of protecting its citizens in state parks and forests.
Valihura said that the high court's ruling in Doe had rejected the “general safety concern” argument in favor of upholding similar regulations. The lower court's ruling, she said, wrongly presumed that the ability to hunt was an adequate substitute for the core right to self-defense on the public lands.
Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. joined Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr. in a 94-page dissent that detailed the history of state and federal gun rights.
Strine, writing for the minority, said that the 1987 amendment was never meant to curtail the state's ability to regulate firearm possession on its own land, and lawmakers had never introduced legislation to override a “durable, bipartisan, and sensible” consensus that the regulations were appropriate.
“In amending the Delaware Constitution to adopt Section 20, the General Assembly did not intend to create new rights, repeal existing firearm laws, or limit its power to manage its own land. Rather, as the legislative history shows, the General Assembly intended to protect the status quo as it existed in 1987,” Strine said.
Valihura was joined in the majority by Justices James T. Vaughn Jr. and Gary F. Traynor.
The case was captioned Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club v. Small.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHere's What Corporate Litigators Expect Delaware Courts to Address in 2025
6 minute readTesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
2 minute readFed Judiciary Panel Mulls Authority to Ban In-State Bar Admission Requirements
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250