Summary of Second Amendment Case Law - State Cases

Alabama

Hoskins v. State, 449 So.2d 1269 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)

Defendant was convicted of owning a pistol or having it in his possession after having been convicted of assault on a peace officer. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that a state statutory section prohibiting a person convicted of committing a crime of violence from owning or possessing a pistol did not violate the Second Amendment.

Alaska

No case law exists.

Arizona

State v. Swanton, 629 P.2d 98 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981)

Defendant was convicted under a state statute making it a crime to possess nunchakus. Defendant appealed the conviction, contending that he had a constitutional right to possess and carry nunchakus guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The court held that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, does not apply to the states.

Arkansas

Rainey v. Hartness, 5 S.W.3d 410 (Ark. 1999)

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the trial court’s refusal to declare unconstitutional a state regulation which prohibited a hunter from having in his immediate possession a centerfire or rimfire weapon while participating in muzzleloading deer seasons. The court rejected appellants’ argument that the regulation infringed upon the Second Amendment.

Jones v. State, 862 S.W.2d 273 (Ark. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1237 (1994)

The Supreme Court of Arkansas rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of handguns in a vehicle. The court upheld the law as a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power.

Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (Ark. 1876)

The Supreme Court of Arkansas considered and rejected appellant’s argument that a statute prohibiting the carrying of certain weapons, under which appellant was convicted for unlawfully carrying a pistol, violated the Second Amendment. The court, in concluding that the statute was not unconstitutional, examined commentators’ remarks on the purpose of the Second Amendment, noting that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure a free people through a well regulated militia. Further, the court noted that the amendment was a restraint on federal legislation. Finally, the supreme court pointed to State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18 (Ark. 1842), where the court concluded that there was no conflict between a state law prohibiting the wearing of concealed weapons and the Second Amendment.

State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18 (Ark. 1842)

The state prosecuted defendant who was convicted under a state statute that prohibited the carrying of certain weapons. The Supreme Court of Arkansas, in rejecting defendant’s argument that the act was unconstitutional, considered the purposes for which the Second Amendment was adopted. The court rejected the argument that the Amendment was adopted for the purpose of enabling individuals to defend and redress their own injuries by using their own arms.

California

Anderson v. Weakland, A104837, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6605 (Cal. Ct. App. July 14, 2004) (unpublished decision)

Defendant appealed from a domestic violence restraining order, arguing that the order's restriction on possession of firearms violated the Second Amendment. In affirming the grant of the restraining order, the court held that the firearms possession restriction could not be severed from the restraining order and that the Second Amendment had no application to defendant's situation.

Acosta v. Wilder, D041293, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1150 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2004) (unpublished decision)

Plaintiffs, subject to mutual restraining orders, challenged their orders on procedural grounds and contended that the restraining orders infringed upon their Second Amendment rights. The court pointed to In re Rameriz (1924) 193 Cal. 633, 651, and rejected their assertion on the ground that the "Second Amendment right to bear arms offers no protection against the policing powers of a state government."

Rupf v. Yan, 85 Cal. App. 4th 411 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)

Appellant challenged a state statute authorizing the confiscation and possible forfeiture of firearms from persons taken into custody for evaluation of their mental condition. Appellant argued that the right to return of his firearms is a fundamental right under the Second Amendment. The court rejected this argument, holding that the regulation of firearms in California has long been established as a proper police function. The court held further that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.

In re Evans, 49 Cal. App. 4th 1263 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)

The court applied a rational basis test in an equal protection challenge to a law prohibiting enumerated misdemeanants from possessing a firearm for a ten year period. The court held that the rational basis test was appropriate because the classification of misdemeanants did not involve a typically suspect classification such as race or sex, and the private right to possess firearms is not a fundamental right under the Second Amendment.

People v. Bland, 898 P.2d 391 (Cal. 1995)

Defendant was convicted of drug offenses and received an enhanced sentence because he kept an assault weapon near his stash of drugs. The California Supreme Court held that imposing additional term of imprisonment when a person possesses cocaine base for sale and keeps an assault rifle handy to a stash of illegal drugs would not violate the Second Amendment.

People v. Evans, 40 Cal. App. 3d 582 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)

Defendant was convicted of violating a state statute making it a crime for a person convicted of a felony to possess a firearm. On appeal, defendant argued that such a prohibition infringes his right to self-defense under the state constitution. The court rejected his argument and noted that it would also fail should he equate such a right with the language of the Second Amendment, since the regulation of firearms is a proper police function.

People v. Seale, 274 Cal. App. 2d 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)

Defendant appealed his conviction of knowingly bringing a firearm onto the grounds of a city jail. The court determined that there was no Second Amendment violation because the Amendment does not function as a limitation on the states but rather limits only the federal government.

Galvan v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 452 P.2d 930 (Cal. 1969)

The California Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a San Francisco gun registration ordinance, noting that the claim that legislation regulating weapons violates the Second Amendment has been rejected by every court which has ruled on the issue. The court stated further that it is a settled issue in California that the state may regulate firearms pursuant to its police powers.

People v. Garcia, 218 P.2d 837 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)

The court held that a statute making it a felony for any person who has been previously convicted of a felony to own or possess a deadly weapon is a proper exercise of state police power and, therefore, does not violate the Second Amendment.

People v. Wells, 156 P.2d 979 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)

The court determined that a statute prohibiting prisoners in state prisons from possessing or carrying designated weapons is a valid police regulation and therefore not violative of the Second Amendment.

In re Application of Rameriz, 226 P. 914 (Cal. 1924)

Defendant was convicted under a state statute which prohibited aliens from owning or carrying concealed weapons. The California Supreme Court rejected defendant’s Second Amendment challenge and held that the Second Amendment functions only as a limitation upon the federal government.

Colorado

People v. Marques, 498 P.2d 929 (Colo. 1972)

The Supreme Court of Colorado determined, without discussion, that a statute which penalized the carrying of a concealed weapon after a previous conviction of assault with a deadly weapon is not subject to constitutional attack under the Second Amendment.

Connecticut

Rabbitt v. Leonard, 413 A.2d 489 (Conn. 1979)

Plaintiff, a former pistol permit holder, sought a writ of mandamus ordering reinstatement of his revoked pistol permit. Plaintiff argued that he was denied the fundamental right to bear arms and to defend himself under the state constitution. Because this was a case of first impression in Connecticut, the court looked to Second Amendment jurisprudence which has established that there is no fundamental right to possess a firearm.

Delaware

No case law exists.

Florida

Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1972)

Appellant faced criminal charges following his use of a sub-machine gun to protect himself in his place of business. The Sheriff seized the weapon as evidence but after the charges were dropped, the appellant sought the return of his weapon. In the time between appellant’s arrest and the seizure of his weapon, the state legislature enacted a law which made it unlawful to possess such a weapon. The Sheriff relied upon the enactment of this statute in refusing to return the weapon to appellant. The Supreme Court of Florida determined that the Second Amendment is not infringed by state statutes which make it unlawful to possess certain kinds of firearms.

State v. Astore, 258 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1972)

The court faced the question whether a state statute making it unlawful to possess a short-barreled rifle was constitutional. The court summarily rejected the argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, citing United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Georgia

Strickland v. State, 72 S.E. 260 (Ga. 1911)

The Supreme Court of Georgia determined that a state statute prohibiting the carrying of a revolver without a license did not violate the Second Amendment. In refuting its earlier interpretation of the Second Amendment in Nunn v. State, the supreme court held that, in light of the United States Supreme Court opinions in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), the Second Amendment serves only to limit the power of the federal government, not state governments.

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a state statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons did not violate the Second Amendment. The court held further, however, that the statute did violate the Second Amendment to the extent it prohibited the open bearing of arms.

Hawaii

State v. Mendoza, 920 P.2d 357 (Haw. 1996)

The Supreme Court of Hawaii upheld defendant’s conviction for violating a state law requiring a person to obtain a permit prior to acquiring a firearm. The court held that the Second Amendment serves only to limit the power of the federal government.

Idaho

In re Brickey, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902)

The Supreme Court of Idaho held that a state statute prohibiting private persons from carrying deadly weapons within the limits of any city, town, or village within the state, was in violation of the Second Amendment. The court determined that the legislature may regulate the right to possess deadly weapons but may not prohibit it.

Illinois

People v. Marin, 795 N.E.2d 953 (Ill. 2003), appeal denied, 806 N.E.2d 1070 (Ill. 2003)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated and unlawful use of a weapon and appealed. In conducting a due process analysis and determining whether to apply a rational basis test, the appellate court held that there is no fundamental right embodied by the Second Amendment.

Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. 1984)

The Supreme Court of Illinois considered a challenge to a local ordinance banning the possession of all operable handguns. In upholding the ordinance, the court determined that the Second Amendment embodies a collective, rather than individual right.

Rawlings v. Illinois Dept. of Law Enforcement, 391 N.E.2d 758 (Ill. App. 1979)

Plaintiff appealed from an order affirming an administrative decision which denied her application for a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card. In addressing plaintiff’s Second Amendment argument, the court noted that the right to own and possess firearms is not protected under the United States Constitution. Additionally, the court stated that the case was therefore not one in which an exercise of the police power infringed upon a constitutionally protected fundamental right. Finally, in rejecting plaintiff’s Second Amendment argument, the court held that the Second Amendment’s guarantee is limited to arms that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

People v. Williams, 377 N.E.2d 285 (Ill. App. 1978)

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful use of weapons within five years of conviction of a felony. The court rejected defendant’s Second Amendment argument and held that a firearms regulation that does not impair the maintenance of the state’s active, organized militia is not in violation of either the terms or purpose of the Second Amendment.

Brown v. City of Chicago, 250 N.E.2d 129 (Ill. 1969)

The Supreme Court of Illinois considered the constitutional validity of two Chicago ordinances regulating the possession of firearms and requiring their registration. In rejecting a Second Amendment challenge, the court held that a regulation which does not impair the maintenance of the state’s active, organized militia is not in violation of either the terms or the purposes of the Second Amendment.

Biffer v. City of Chicago, 116 N.E. 182 (Ill. 1917)

The Supreme Court of Illinois considered an ordinance which regulated the sale of revolvers and other deadly weapons. In addressing the Second Amendment issue, the court held that the sale of deadly weapons may be absolutely prohibited under the police power of the state without violating the Second Amendment.

Indiana

Baker v. State, 747 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), transfer denied, 761 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. 2001)

Defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated battery and possession of a firearm by a serious violent offender. The court rejected defendant’s Second Amendment challenge, holding that the Second Amendment has never been incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Kellog v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 1990)

Citizens brought suit against the city and city officials alleging violations of the Indiana Firearms Act in denying the citizens blank handgun permit application forms. The Supreme Court of Indiana rejected their Second Amendment argument, holding that the Second Amendment has never been incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the states. Furthermore, the court held that there is no right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, such as handguns, which have no reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)

Appellant applied for a license to carry a handgun and his application was denied. On appeal, the court rejected appellant’s Second Amendment argument, stating merely that such a licensing procedure is not violative of the Second Amendment.

Iowa

State v. Brecunier, 564 N.W.2d 365 (Iowa 1997)

Defendant was convicted of interference with official acts while armed. The Supreme Court of Iowa held that defendant had no Second Amendment right to be armed while interfering with police activity.

State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1979)

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon. The Supreme Court of Iowa held that the Second Amendment’s protection extends only to situations bearing some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

Kansas

State v. Bolin, 436 P.2d 978 (Kan. 1968)

Defendant was convicted of owning or having a pistol in his possession or under his control after a previous conviction of burglary in the second degree. In addressing defendant’s Second Amendment argument, the Supreme Court of Kansas held that the enactment of a statute which makes it unlawful for one previously convicted of burglary to own or keep a pistol in his or her possession is within the police power of the legislature.

City of Salina v. Blaksley, 83 P. 619 (Kan. 1905)

Defendant appealed his conviction for carrying a pistol within the city while intoxicated. The Supreme Court of Kansas determined that like Kansas’s state constitution, the Second Amendment protects only the right of the people to bear arms as members of a well-regulated militia or other military organization provided for by law.

Kentucky

Jones v. Crittenden, 96 S.W.3d 13 (Ken. 2003), cert denied sub nom. Jones v. Kentucky Dept. of Military Affairs, 538 U.S. 961 (2003)

Members of the Kentucky National Guard brought claims against the Guard and the Kentucky Department of Military Affairs for discrimination and retaliation pursuant to the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. This case is notable because the Kentucky Supreme Court, in dicta, states that the militia is the military forebear of the National Guard and is expressly provided for in the Second Amendment. The court reasons that because of the Second Amendment, each state is empowered to maintain a militia, for which the court sees the modern equivalent as the National Guard.

Louisiana

State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La. 01/18/01); 776 So.2d 1165

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm while in possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the court of appeal’s determination that the Second Amendment allows the State of Louisiana to restrict the right to possess firearms for legitimate state purposes, such as public health and safety.

State v. Hamlin, 497 So.2d 1369 (La. 1986)

Defendants were charged with possession of an unregistered shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length. Defendants challenged the constitutionality of the charge. The Supreme Court of Louisiana rejected defendants’ Second Amendment argument, holding that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore, does not apply to the states.

Rudolph v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., 472 So.2d 901 (La. 1985)

In discussing the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court of Louisiana noted, in dicta, that the Second Amendment has been perceived as primarily a guarantee that the federal government would not interfere with the state militia and has not been made applicable to the states.

State v. Young, 472 So.2d 297 (La. Ct. App. 1985)

Defendant was convicted of illegally carrying a concealed weapon. The appellate court rejected defendant’s Second Amendment argument by simply noting that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

State v. Sanders, 357 So.2d 492 (La. 1978)

Defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon after having previously been convicted of a felony. The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that it does not violate the Second Amendment to prohibit possession of firearms for a limited time by citizens who have committed certain specified serious felonies.

State v. Amos, 343 So.2d 166 (La. 1977)

Defendants were charged with possession of a firearm after previous felony convictions. The Supreme Court of Louisiana rejected defendants’ Second Amendment argument, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and only operates as a limitation upon the federal government.

State v. Jumel, 13 La. Ann. 399 (La. 1858)

Defendant was convicted of illegally carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court of Louisiana rejected defendant’s argument that the law was repugnant to the Second Amendment, holding that the prohibition on unlawful carrying of concealed weapons is a measure of the police power “prohibiting only a particular mode of bearing arms which is found dangerous to the peace of society.”

State v. Smith, 11 La. Ann. 633 (La. 1856)

Defendant was convicted of illegally carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that the statute prohibiting carrying of a concealed weapon was not violative of the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the court held that the Second Amendment does not prohibit states from adopting measures which will protect the citizenry.

State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489 (La. 1850)

Defendant was indicted for murder and sought a jury instruction such that the jury would be told that carrying weapons whether openly or concealed is not a crime in Louisiana and is not prohibited by the federal constitution. The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that a statute prohibiting concealed weapons does not violate the Second Amendment.

Maine

State v. Goodno, 511 A.2d 456 (Me. 1986)

Defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court of Maine rejected defendant’s Second Amendment argument and held that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and therefore, does not limit the authority of the state legislature.

State v. Friel, 508 A.2d 123 (Me. 1986)

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon. The Supreme Court of Maine rejected defendant’s Second Amendment argument and held that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and therefore, does not limit the authority of the state legislature.

Maryland

Scherr v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 880 A.2d 1137 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2005)

Appellant, who was denied a handgun permit, brought two actions seeking judicial review of the Handgun Permit Review Board’s decisions. Appellant challenged the constitutionality of Maryland Code Annotated, Public Safety § 5-301 et seq. (formerly Md. Ann. Code art. 27, § 36(E)(a)(6)) (requiring a permit to carry a handgun), arguing that the Second Amendment recognizes an inherent danger in society such that it recognizes that a citizen has a right to arm himself or herself. Given this constitutional principle and the fact that appellant "apprehended danger" and feared for his safety, appellant argued that the Review Board had no choice in granting his permit request. Scherr, 880 A.2d at 1150-51. The court concluded that this argument was non-meritorious, citing Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) (the Second Amendment constrains only the federal government). Further, the court pointed to Onderdonk v. Handgun Permit Review Board, 407 A.2d 763 (Md. 1979) (state statutes regulating the right to "bear arms" are a reasonable exercise of a state’s police power and do not violate the Second Amendment).

Onderdonk v. Handgun Permit Review Bd. of Maryland, 407 A.2d 763 (Md. 1979)

Appellant appealed the decision of the Maryland State Police to deny his permit to carry a handgun. The court held that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable regulation and does not provide an absolute right of citizens to carry firearms.

Massachusetts

Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976)

Defendant was convicted of possession of a shotgun with a barrel less than eighteen inches in length. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts rejected defendant’s Second Amendment argument and held that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

Michigan

Lincoln Park Housing Commission v. Andrew, No. 244259, 2004 Mich. App. LEXIS 792 (Mich. Ct. App. March 23, 2004) (unpublished decision)

Defendant was evicted from her government-subsidized housing because she possessed a gun in violation of the lease agreement. The court rejected the claim that her eviction violated her Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) and Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217 (N.D. NY 2003) for the propositions that the Second Amendment does not safeguard an individual right to bear arms and that the Second Amendment is not incorporated to the states via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus not applicable to the states.

Kampf v. Kampf, 603 N.W.2d 295 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999)

Respondent appealed an ex parte personal protection order obtained by his spouse. Respondent argued that the order would unconstitutionally deprive him of his right to possess firearms. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

People v. Graham, 335 N.W.2d 658 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)

Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The appellate court considered defendant’s Second Amendment challenge to the felony-firearm statute and determined that the Second Amendment does not grant the right to possess a firearm during the commission of a felony.

Bay County Concealed Weapons Licensing Bd. v. Gasta, 293 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)

The Bay County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board appealed an order which reversed its decision to revoke a licensee’s permit to carry a concealed weapon. The appellate court held that the existence of the Concealed Weapons Licensing Board reflects the state’s legitimate interest in limiting public access to weapons suitable for criminal purposes and confirms the notion that the Second Amendment is subject to reasonable exercise of the police power.

City of Detroit v. Recorder’s Ct. Judge, 304 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)

Defendant, a municipal judge, appealed from a writ which ordered defendant to enforce a municipal gun control ordinance. The appellate court rejected defendant’s argument that the ordinance violated the Second Amendment, stating that the argument was not supported by authority and defendant lacked standing to raise it.

Minnesota

In re Application of Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 1980)

Plaintiff appealed the Police Chief’s decision to deny his application for a permit to carry a pistol. The Supreme Court of Minnesota rejected appellant’s claim that a statute requiring a permit to carry a pistol in a public place violates the Second Amendment. The court held that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, that it embodies a collective, rather than individual right and that it does not limit the power of state legislatures to prohibit individuals from carrying deadly weapons where the prohibition will not interfere with the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

Mississippi

No case law exists.

Missouri

State v. Keet, 190 S.W. 573 (Mo. 1916)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court of Missouri rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

State v. Shelby, 2 S.W. 468 (Mo. 1886)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting the carrying of a deadly weapon while intoxicated. The Supreme Court of Missouri rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, ruling that the Amendment does not apply to the states.

State v. Wilforth, 74 Mo. 528 (Mo. 1881)

Defendant argued that a statute that prohibited going into a church house while in possession of firearms violated the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court of Missouri rejected defendant’s argument, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

Montana

No case law exists.

Nebraska

State v. Haynes, 222 N.W.2d 358 (Neb. 1974)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court of Nebraska rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights by holding that the Second Amendment applies only to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.

State v. Skinner, 203 N.W.2d 161 (Neb. 1973)

Defendant argued that his conviction for violating a felon in possession of a firearm statute violated the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court of Nebraska rejected defendant’s argument, holding that the Second Amendment applies only to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, not to individuals.

Nevada

Hardison v. State, 437 P.2d 868 (Nev. 1968)

Defendant appealed his conviction for burglary and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court rejected defendant’s Second Amendment challenge to the felon in possession statute, ruling that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government, and not to the states.

Harris v. State, 432 P.2d 929 (Nev. 1967)

Defendant appealed a conviction for violating a statute prohibiting possession of a tear gas weapon. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, ruling that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government, not to state actions or private citizens.

New Hampshire

State v. Sanne, 364 A.2d 630 (N.H. 1976)

Defendant argued that his conviction for violating a statute prohibiting the carrying of loaded pistols without a license violated the Second Amendment. The court rejected defendant’s argument, ruling that state statutes that reasonably regulate weapon ownership do not violate the Second Amendment. The court further explained that the Second Amendment only limits the authority of the federal government, not that of the states.

New Jersey

Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968)

Plaintiffs, members of the gun industry, filed a complaint requesting an injunction against the New Jersey Gun Control Law. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment embodies the collective right of the people, not an individual right. The court also stated that the statute did not impair the maintenance of the state’s active, organized militia and was, therefore, not in violation of the Constitution.

New Mexico

No case law exists.

New York

Matter of Peterson v. Kavanagh, 799 N.Y.S.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Plaintiff alleged that the revocation of his pistol permit, following a guilty plea for committing insurance fraud, was arbitrary and capricious and constituted a violation of his Second Amendment rights. New York Penal Law section 400.00(11) requires a revocation for a felony conviction or a "serious offense," and an individual must be denied a firearm if he or she lacks "good moral character" per Penal Law section 400.00(1). The court rejected plaintiff’s Second Amendment claim, citing Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp.2d 217, 224-226 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) for the proposition that in order to obtain protection under the Second Amendment, plaintiff’s possession of firearms must bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

Citizens for a Safer Cmty. v. City of Rochester, 627 N.Y.S.2d 193 (Sup. Ct. 1994)

Plaintiffs argued that a city ordinance which restricted possession of automatic and semiautomatic weapons violated the Second Amendment. The court ruled that the ordinance was a lawful exercise of police power and did not violate the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the court held that the Second Amendment only limits the power of Congress, not that of the states.

Demyan v. Monroe, 485 N.Y.S.2d 152 (App. Div. 1985)

Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Penal Law Section 400.00 under which his permit to carry a pistol was revoked. The court rejected petitioner’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that “[t]he constitutional argument…that Penal Law §400.00 infringes on petitioner’s rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution, 2d Amendment to keep and bear arms, has already received considerable judicial attention and has consistently been repudiated.”

People v. Morrill, 475 N.Y.S.2d 648 (App. Div. 1984)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting criminal possession of a weapon. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment places no limitation on the authority of state legislatures to enact gun control legislation, which is within the police powers of the state.

Guida v. Dier, 375 N.Y.S.2d 826 (Sup. Ct. 1975)

Petitioner appealed the denial of his application for a pistol license, arguing that the denial violated the Second Amendment. The court rejected applicant’s argument, holding that Second Amendment rights do not extend to handguns or other readily concealable weapons, but only to weaponry suitable for use by the militia in warfare and for the general defense of the community.

Grimm v. City of New York, 289 N.Y.S.2d 358 (Sup. Ct. 1968)

Petitioners sought a temporary injunction and a declaration that New York City gun laws were unconstitutional as a violation of the Second Amendment. The court rejected petitioners’ Second Amendment argument, holding that the Amendment is not a limitation on the states’ power to create and enforce firearms regulations.

Application of Grauling, 183 N.Y.S.2d 654 (Sup. Ct. 1959)

Petitioner sought review of a denial of his application for a pistol license. The court rejected petitioner’s argument that the denial violated his Second Amendment rights.

Matter of Cassidy, 51 N.Y.S.2d 202 (App. Div. 1944)

Petitioner sought acceptance into the Bar of the State of New York. Admission was denied since there was concern surrounding the applicant’s advocacy of unlawful formations of armed units and participation in conspiracies to overthrow the government. The court rejected petitioner’s argument that the constitution justified his formation of private armed militias. The court held that the Second Amendment does not grant a license to carry firearms and “the right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution.”

Moore v. Gallup, 45 N.Y.S.2d 63 (App. Div. 1943)

Petitioner argued that a denial of his application to carry a concealed weapon was a violation of his rights under the Second Amendment. The court held that since the Second Amendment does not apply to the states nor does it confer any right to possess weapons on private individuals, if there was any violation it would be of the New York Civil Rights Law Article 4. The court then held that there was no violation since local officials have the authority to deny weapon licenses in the interest of public safety.

People ex rel. Darling v. Warden of City Prison, 139 N.Y.S. 277 (App. Div. 1913)

Plaintiff was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting possession of a weapon without a permit. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment has no effect other than to restrict the powers of the national government. Thus, according to the court, the right of the people to have weapons is not a right provided by the Constitution.

People v. Persce, 97 N.E. 877 (N.Y. 1912)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting the unlawful carrying of a weapon. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment is not designed to control legislation by the states.

People v. Ryan, 136 N.Y.S. 154 (N.Y. City Magis. Ct. 1911)

Defendant was charged with violating a statute which prohibited possession of a firearm without a permit. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment is not operative against the states. The court also held that the Second Amendment is not violated by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.

North Carolina

State v. Fennell, 382 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. 1989)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction - a sawed-off shotgun. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to possess weapons in connection with a well-regulated militia.

State v. Dobbins, 178 S.E.2d 449 (N.C. 1971)

Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon in an area where a state of emergency had been declared. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (N.C. 1921)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting the carrying of a pistol. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment is a restriction upon the federal government and does not apply to the states.

State v. Newsom, 27 N.C. 250 (5 Ired.) (1844)

Defendant was convicted of being a free person of color in possession of a firearm without a license. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute violated the Second Amendment, declaring that the Second Amendment was designed only to restrict the federal government. The court further stated that states are free to issue firearm regulations as they see fit.

North Dakota

No case law exists.

Ohio

Gaydash v. Gaydash, 2006-Ohio-4080 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)

Defendant-appellant appealed a civil protective order that, he argued, deprived him of his Second Amendment right to “bear arms.” The court rejected his argument, noting that there was sufficient evidence to support the civil protection order prohibiting possession of a firearm or deadly weapon, and that defendant-appellant had failed to cite any relevant authority in support of his Second Amendment claim. Id. at ¶¶ 18-19.

State v. Greene, 2003-Ohio-2832 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)

The court rejected defendant’s argument that his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon violated his rights under the Second Amendment. The court noted that the Second Amendment has not been made applicable to the states, as observed in Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993). Even assuming it was applicable to the states, the court further rejected defendant’s argument, based on Arnold and Mosher v. City of Dayton, 358 N.E.2d 540 (Ohio 1976) on the ground that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms.

Peoples Rights Organization, Inc. v. Montgomery, 756 N.E.2d 127 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001), dismissed, appeal not allowed, 754 N.E.2d 258 (Ohio 2001)

Handgun buyers and licensed handgun dealers brought a class action against the State Attorney General in an attempt to recover fees incurred conducting required background checks. The court rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the background checks violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.

Arnold v. City of Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993)

Petitioners appealed a decision upholding an ordinance prohibiting the possession and sale of assault weapons. In affirming the judgment, the court rejected petitioners’ claim that the ordinance violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment does not confer individual rights and is not applicable to the states.

State v. Brady, 548 N.E.2d 278 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)

Defendant appealed his conviction for violating a statute prohibiting carrying a concealed weapon. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute violated the Second Amendment, stating that the Second Amendment is a “military and not an individual concept” and as such, it does not confer an individual right to bear arms.

City of East Cleveland v. Scales, 460 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983)

Defendant was convicted of failing to carry an owner identification card while in possession of a handgun. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the ordinance violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state actions. The court also stated that the Second Amendment does not grant individual rights.

State v. Pauley, 457 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982)

Defendant appealed a conviction for violating a statute prohibiting the possession of a weapon while under disability. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute violated the Second Amendment, stating that “the notion that there is a personal right to carry concealed weapons that is a fundamental right under the United States and Ohio Constitutions has been repeatedly and emphatically rejected.”

State v. Winkelman, 442 N.E.2d 811 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute which prohibited indicted persons from possessing any firearms. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment provides no individual constitutional right to possess a firearm.

State v. Brown, No. 76AP-640, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 7177 (Ohio Ct. App. March 10, 1977) (unpublished decision)

Appellant, charged with carrying of a concealed weapon, pled no contest to a lesser included offense and subsequently appealed, claiming that the statute he allegedly violated was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court rejected the argument, noting that the Second Amendment "restricts the powers of the national government" and that the statute at issue was a reasonable application of the state police power. Id. at *4.

Mosher v. City of Dayton, 358 N.E.2d 540 (Ohio 1976)

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of an ordinance which required individuals to obtain an identification card in order to possess a handgun. The court rejected petitioners’ claim that the ordinance violated the Second Amendment, holding that state regulations of firearms possession do not violate the Second Amendment unless they infringe upon the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.

Photos v. City of Toledo, 250 N.E.2d 916 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas 1969)

Petitioners, on behalf of all taxpayers within the municipality, brought suit in order to obtain an injunction to enjoin the city from enforcing gun control ordinances. The court rejected petitioners’ claim that the ordinances violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to municipal legislation, nor does it guarantee the privilege of any individual to keep arms.

McCollum v. City of Cincinnati, 199 N.E. 603 (Ohio Ct. App. 1935)

Petitioner was convicted of discharging a firearm in violation of a city ordinance. The court rejected petitioner’s claim that the ordinance violated the Second Amendment, explaining that the Second Amendment relates exclusively to the powers of the federal government. The court stated that the Second Amendment was not designed as a limitation upon state governments in reference to laws regulating their own citizens.

Oklahoma

State v. Warren, 975 P.2d 900 (1998)

Applicant was denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon and appealed on the grounds that the denial violated his Second Amendment rights. The court rejected this argument, holding that the Second Amendment is only a limitation upon the power of Congress, not that of the states, and only protects a right to “bear arms” in connection with service to a well-regulated state militia.

Oregon

State v. Perry, 77 P.3d 313 (Or. 2003)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting the unlawful possession of a firearm. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violates the Second Amendment.

State v. Hirsch, 34 P.3d 1209 (Or. Ct. App. 2001), review allowed, 49 P.3d 797 (Or. 2002)

Defendant argued that his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm violated his right to possess weapons under the Oregon State Constitution and was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court held that that statute was constitutional since the state has a right to restrict the possession of firearms under the Second Amendment. The court also held that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual but a collective right to bear arms.

State v. Owenby, 826 P.2d 51 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)

Defendant, who was declared mentally ill and a danger to himself and others, challenged an order preventing him from purchasing or possessing firearms. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the order violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment is a limitation upon the powers of Congress, and not that of the states.

State v. Barnhardt, 680 P.2d 7 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute which prohibited hunting without proper authorization. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights, holding that “nothing in the state or federal constitution forbids the regulation of the use of a weapon.”

State v. Cartwright, 418 P.2d 822 (Or. 1966)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment only limits the power of Congress, not that of the states.

Pennsylvania

Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 839 A.2d 265 (Pa. 2003)

Petitioner’s application to purchase a firearm was denied pursuant to the Federal Gun Control Act (statute which prohibits persons who have been convicted of a crime punishable by at least one year in prison from possessing firearms). The court rejected petitioner’s claim that the denial violated the Second Amendment, holding that the legislative restrictions are “neither based on constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties.”

Commonwealth v. Harley, 418 A.2d 1354 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980)

Defendant shot and killed one police officer and tried to shoot another in an attempt to resist arrest. Upon appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that every person has an absolute right, under the Second Amendment, to possess a weapon in his home. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the trial court’s refusal was proper, noting that the instruction was unrelated to the crimes for which defendant had been indicted.

Rhode Island

No case law exists.

South Carolina

No case law exists.

South Dakota

No case law exists.

Tennessee

No case law exists.

Texas

Wilt v. Texas Department of Public Safety, No. 06-03-00147-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 5804 (Tex. Ct. App. June 30, 2004) (unpublished decision)

The Texas Department of Public Safety denied defendant's application for a renewal of his concealed handgun permit under Texas law because he had recently been convicted of three misdemeanor offenses. Defendant appealed the Department's decision, contending it violated the Second Amendment. The court upheld the Department's decision, stating that federal courts have repeatedly affirmed the authority of Congress to impose restrictions on gun ownership.

Ex Parte Perez, No. 05-03-00363-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4670 (Tex. Crim. App. June 3, 2003) (unpublished decision)

Appellant, charged with unlawfully carrying a firearm, brought a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the charge on grounds that the statute under which he was prosecuted violated the Second Amendment. Appellant claimed that United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (the Second Amendment limits only the federal government) and United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia) supported his claim for an individual right to bear arms. The court rejected these arguments, noting that as recently as 1980, the Court "cited Miller for the proposition that the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Ex Parte Perez, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4670 at * 7, quoting Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 n.8 (1980).

Scott v. State, No. 05-02-01023-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5051 (Tex. Crim. App. June 17, 2003) (unpublished decision)

Defendant appealed a conviction for unlawfully carrying a handgun, arguing that the state statute was violative of the Second Amendment. Appellant argued that: 1) the Second Amendment applied to the states, since the later-enacted Fourteenth Amendment had been incorporated; and 2) in the wake of United States v. Emerson, 270 F. 3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1081 (2004), an individual, regardless of his or her connection to a militia, has an individual right to carry a firearm. The court rejected appellant’s arguments, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states or their subdivisions, citing its own precedent in Masters v. State, 685 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and does not have the preemptive effect on keeping and bearing arms).

Moosani v. State, 914 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)

Defendant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a weapon. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the conviction violated his Second Amendment rights, holding that the Second Amendment does not grant rights unrelated to a well-regulated militia.

Ex parte Williams, 786 S.W.2d 781 (Tex. Ct. App. 1990)

Petitioner was charged under a statute which prohibits the carrying of a weapon. The court rejected petitioner’s argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, ruling that in the absence of evidence showing that the weapon had some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment affords no protection.

Masters v. State, 685 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute which prohibits the unlawful carrying of a firearm. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the statute infringed on his Second Amendment rights, holding that the Second Amendment is a limitation upon Congress and does not apply to states or their subdivisions.

Runo v. State, 556 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting felons from possessing a firearm. The court summarily rejected defendant’s argument that the statute violated defendant’s Second Amendment rights.

Caswell & Smith v. State, 148 S.W. 1159 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912)

Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of a statute that taxed the sale of pistols. The court rejected petitioner’s challenge that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment only limits acts of Congress and does not limit the power of the state to regulate firearms.

English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 (Tex. 1872)

Defendants were convicted of violating a statute which prohibited the carrying of dangerous weapons. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the statute violated the Second Amendment, ruling that the Second Amendment protects rights related to military weapons used by a well-regulated militia, and not rights concerning weapons that are used in quarrels.

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (Tex. 1859)

Defendant argued that an additional penalty for using a deadly weapon in connection with murder violated his Second Amendment rights. The court rejected defendant’s argument, holding that the Second Amendment does not affect the authority of the states to regulate the use of weapons and thus protect the safety of its citizens.

Utah

State v. Willis, 52 P.3d 461 (Utah Ct. App. 2002), cert. granted, 63 P.3d 104 (Utah 2003)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting possession of a firearm by a restricted person. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the law was a valid exercise of police power.

State v. Vlacil, 645 P.2d 677 (Utah 1982)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting possession of a dangerous weapon by a person who was not a citizen of the United States. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the right to “keep and bear arms” only applies to the right of the state to maintain a militia.

Vermont

No case law exists.

Virginia

No case law exists.

Washington

Estes v. Vashon Maury Island Fire Protection District No. 13, No. 55950-8-I, 2005 Wash. App. LEXIS 2575 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2005) (per curiam)

The court rejected plaintiff's claim that a fire district policy prohibiting the use and possession of firearms while on district property violated his rights under the Second Amendment. The plaintiff failed "to cite any authority for his contention that this provision of the Bill of Rights has been made applicable to the states and consequently to entities . . . created by state law." Id. at * 7.

State v. Schelin, 55 P.3d 632 (Wash. 2002)

Defendant was convicted of violating a statute prohibiting possession of a deadly weapon in connection with drug-related crimes. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment was only intended to restrict the federal government and not the states.

State v. Krzeszowski, 24 P.3d 485 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)

The court rejected the defendant’s claim that a state statute prohibiting the unlawful possession of a firearm violates the Second Amendment, noting that any "right to bear arms is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulation." Id. at 487. The court rejected defendant’s proposed reliance on United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999), because, the court said, Emerson "mistakenly portrays a dissenting view from another case as if it were a majority position." Krzeszowski, 24 P.3d at 488.

State v. Hernandez-Mercado, 879 P.2d 283 (Wash. 1994)

Defendant was convicted of being a non-citizen in possession of a firearm. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute prohibiting non-citizens from possessing a firearm was unconstitutional, holding that non-citizens have no Second Amendment rights and states can regulate firearms under their police powers.

State v. Walsh, 870 P.2d 974 (Wash. 1994)

Defendant was charged with using a spotlight while hunting. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute under which he was charged violated the Second Amendment, holding that a statute prohibiting hunting of big game with artificial light was a reasonable regulation of conduct under the state’s police power.

West Virginia

Rohrbaugh v. State of West Virginia, 607 S.E.2d 404 (W. Va. 2004)

As the result of a felony sexual assault conviction, plaintiff was prohibited from possessing firearms. He applied for the restoration of this privilege under West Virginia law, arguing that the prohibition on possessing firearms violated the Second Amendment. The court denied plaintiff's petition, stating that the statutory restrictions were a proper exercise of the Legislature's police power.

State v. Workman, 14 S.E. 9 (W. Va. 1891)

Defendant was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statute prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon violated the Second Amendment, holding that because “arms” in the Second Amendment refers to weapons of warfare to be used by the militia, it does not apply to weapons to be used in brawls or quarrels.

Wisconsin

State v. Hopkins, Appeal No. 2005AP1482-CR, 2005 WI App 254, 706 N.W.2d 704 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2005) (unpublished decision)

The court rejected appellant’s argument that probation conditions imposed on him by a trial court, prohibiting him from possessing a firearm, violated his Second Amendment rights, citing to Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) for the proposition that the Second Amendment has never been applied to the states. The court noted also that the Second Amendment has "never been interpreted to prevent federal regulation of gun-possession," citing United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Hopkins, 2005 WI App 254, ¶ 8.

Hoverman v. Frautschi, No. 97-2005, 577 N.W.2d 388 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 1998) (unpublished opinion)

Respondent appealed an injunction against him for harassing a neighbor, arguing that the injunction (which prohibited respondent from taking any firearm outside of his home for any purpose other than legitimate hunting purposes during the hunting season) was an unconstitutional infringement upon his rights under the Second Amendment. The court rejected this argument, as respondent provided no support for it beyond the language of the Amendment itself to prove that it "offers protection against the actions of state governments acting to insure the safety of its citizens." Id. at *6-*7.

State v. Novacek, No. 92-3304-CR-NM, 1993 Wisc. App. LEXIS 864 (Wis. Ct. App. July 8, 1993) (per curiam) (unpublished decision)

The court rejected defendant’s argument that his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court pointed to extensive case law that "clearly indicates that the authority to regulate weapons comes from state police powers and that states may regulate the right to ‘bear arms’ in the interest of public safety." Id. at *4.

Wyoming

King v. Wyoming Div. of Crim. Investigation, 2004 WY 52, 89 P.3d 341 (Wyo. 2004)

Petitioner was denied a permit to carry a concealed firearm based on his misdemeanor domestic violence conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and sought reconsideration of the decision on the ground that his conviction was not a "misdemeanor crime for domestic violence" as provided by federal law, which would prevent issuance of the permit. King v. Wyoming Div. of Crim. Investigation, 2004 WY 52, ¶ 1, 89 P.3d 341, 1 (Wyo. 2004). The court, in rejecting plaintiff’s claims, looked to United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) in finding that "the Second Amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to bear arms, let alone the right to carry a concealed weapon." King v. Wyoming Div. of Crim. Investigation, 2004 WY 52, ¶ 27, 89 P.3d 341, 27 (Wyo. 2004).

Mecikalski v. Office of Atty. Gen. Div. of Crim. Investigation, 2 P.3d 1039 (Wyo. 2000)

Applicant appealed a denial of an application for a permit to carry a concealed firearm. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the denial violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment does not grant a right to possess weapons, and has no application to state actions or regulations.

District of Columbia

Hartridge v. United States, 896 A.2d 198 (D.C. Ct. App. 2006)

Defendants argued that their conviction for carrying a pistol without a license pursuant to D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) violated the Second Amendment. The court rejected the argument, noting that the defendant did not raise the issue at trial. Regardless, the court reasoned, a Second Amendment appeal would be rejected based on Sandidge v. U.S., 520 A.2d. 1057 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 868 (1987) (upholding the constitutionality of the statute criminalizing carrying a pistol without a license).

Bennett v. United States, 876 A.2d 623 (D.C. Ct. App. 2005)

Defendant was convicted under District of Columbia law of possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. Defendant challenged his convictions on the ground that the statutes under which he was convicted violated the Second Amendment. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that defendant’s challenges were foreclosed by binding precedent such as Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 868 (1987) (rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to the same statutes).

Washington v. United States, 884 A.2d 1080 (D.C. Ct. App. 2005)

Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter while armed, assault with a deadly weapon, carrying a pistol without a license, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant appealed, contending his conviction for carrying a pistol without a license violated the Second Amendment. In affirming defendant's convictions, the court stated that the defendant's argument was foreclosed by Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 868 (1987) (holding that D.C.'s statute criminalizing carrying a pistol without a license did not violate the Second Amendment), and other binding precedent.

Barron v. United States, 818 A.2d 987 (D.C. 2003)

Defendant argued that his conviction for carrying a gun without a license violated the Second Amendment. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, holding that the Second Amendment protects the right of the state to “bear arms,” not the right of the individual.

Mitchell v. United States, 746 A.2d 877 (D.C. 2000)

Defendant was convicted of carrying a pistol without a license and appealed on the basis that the conviction violated the Second Amendment. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that defendant had waived his right to raise a Second Amendment claim on appeal. However, the court noted that it had rejected similar Second Amendment challenges in the past.

Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 868 (1987)

Defendant was convicted of carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The court rejected defendant’s claim that the statutes criminalizing his actions violated the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective, rather than an individual right. The court stated that possession of a handgun bore no relationship to the District of Columbia’s interest in maintaining a well-regulated militia, thus this possession was afforded no protection under the Second Amendment.