Judge Nixes New Gun Regulations in State Parks as Unconstitutional
A Delaware Superior Court judge on Thursday ruled that new regulations banning the open carry of firearms in lodges and camping areas of state parks and forests were unconstitutional in light of a state Supreme Court decision last year that struck a blanket prohibition against possessing guns on state lands.
October 11, 2018 at 06:14 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
A Delaware Superior Court judge on Thursday ruled that new regulations banning the open carry of firearms in lodges and camping areas of state parks and forests were unconstitutional in light of a state Supreme Court decision last year that struck a blanket prohibition against possessing guns on state lands.
Judge Jeffrey J. Clark sided with attorneys for the Delaware State Sportsmen's Association, who argued that the regulations from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the Delaware Department of Agriculture violated a provision of the state constitution that allows Delaware citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside of the home.
Francis G.X. Pileggi, who represented the organization, said that the regulations unlawfully prevented people without an open-carry permit from possessing guns in areas where they slept overnight with their families. Those area, he said, were analogous to “vacation homes” or other places where families make their home on a temporary basis.
Pileggi, who also chairs Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott commercial litigation practice, said he was still reviewing the decision, but claimed the ruling as a win for his client.
“I think at first glance we are viewing it as a victory on the major arguments we made,” Pileggi said in an interview.
The Delaware Department of Justice, which represented the DNREC and DDA, deferred comment to the state agencies, whose representatives did not immediately provide comment late Thursday afternoon.
The new regulations went into effect May 11, about five months after the Delaware Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, ruled that a broad ban on guns at state parks and forests “completely eviscerate a core right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and family outside the home.”
Under the revised rules, concealed carry permit-holders and current and former law enforcement officials were allowed to carry guns in all areas of the parks and forests. Other visitors, however, were restricted from possessing firearms in places the agencies deemed to be “sensitive,” including lodges, offices, education centers, bath houses and public campgrounds.
The DSSA initially challenged the regulations pertaining to all of the designated areas, but later refined its argument to just lodges and campgrounds.
The DNREC and DDA said that the regulations promoted the government's objective of ensuring the general safety of visitors on public lands. According to Clark's opinion, the agencies said the designated areas made up less than 1 percent of all parks and forests, and guns were still permitted.
But Clark said that the regulations banned guns in the places where visitors spend most of their time, and the burden was on visitors was too substantial to survive a constitutional challenge.
“The effect of including camp sites within sensitive areas forces state park and forest visitors to give up their right to self-defense in order to camp overnight in those areas,” he wrote in a 38-page opinion. “the right for self-protection, as recognized by the Delaware Supreme Court, is unduly burdened when an overnight guest is banned from possessing his or her firearm while camping overnight in a state park.”
Clark also struck regulations allowing law enforcement to conduct automatic background checks and inspect permits as facially unconstitutional under the Fourth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Other rules that did not raise constitutional concerns were allowed to remain in place.
The case was captioned Delaware State Sportsmen's Association v. Garvin.
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
© 2024 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 AllFTX Estate Seeks to Recoup $1.76B From Binance, Plus Exec 'Piggy Bank' Payouts
3 minute readWilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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