Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia; April 25, 2016; Federal District Court
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike are currently before the Court. The case originated on June 12, 2014, when Plaintiffs GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. and David James filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of 36 C.F.R. 327.13, which restricts firearm usage on Army Corps of Engineers property, as a violation of the Second Amendment. Following the denial of a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 18, 2014, by the Court, Plaintiffs appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this denial on June 9, 2015, remanding the case for further proceedings. A related action was initiated by Plaintiffs GCO and Brian Barrs in the Southern District of Georgia on September 4, 2014, which was subsequently transferred to this Court. The two cases were consolidated on February 18, 2015. Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on December 23, 2015, while Plaintiffs submitted their Motion to Strike on March 9, 2016. The Court has completed the briefing process for both motions and is prepared to resolve the matters.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion to strike the majority of the administrative records (ARs) submitted by Defendants, claiming they are largely irrelevant to their facial challenge of the Firearms Regulation. They also contest the adequacy of certifications for certain ARs and argue that due process is violated when a petition is denied based on a record without prior notice. The administrative record includes all documents considered by the agency, including those indirectly considered, which may not have been directly reviewed but were heavily relied upon in decision-making.
The designation of the AR is presumed to be regular, and absent clear evidence to the contrary, courts assume that the agency properly designated the record. The burden lies with Plaintiffs to prove that the Corps failed to designate the ARs correctly. In this case, Plaintiffs did not provide clear evidence or legal authority to support their claims that the ARs were improperly designated or that the certifications were inadequate. Additionally, courts have ruled that there is no legal requirement for Defendants to certify an administrative record. As a result, Plaintiffs are not entitled to strike any portions of the ARs, as they have not overcome the presumption of regularity associated with the agency’s actions.
Plaintiffs failed to provide legal or factual support for their claims of due process violations due to lack of notice regarding portions of the administrative records (ARs) relied upon by Defendants. Consequently, the Court does not address these claims. Additionally, the Plaintiffs alleged that their due process rights were violated because they could not address certain evidence, but again, without adequate support, the Court does not engage with this assertion. Regarding the length of the ARs, the Court notes that Plaintiffs had almost four months to review them before responding to the Motion for Summary Judgment and did not request an extension, which undermines their argument. As a result, the Court denies the Motion to Strike any part of the ARs.
In the context of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court emphasizes the requirement to view evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party and clarifies that the provided statement of facts is not a finding of fact but serves to frame the legal analysis of the case. The Defendant Army Corps manages 422 projects across 42 states and oversees 12 million acres of land and water, focusing on flood protection, hydroelectric power, navigation, and recreation. Their recreation areas are predominantly located near urban centers, attracting over 370 million visits annually, making them the most-visited federal sites. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security regards some of these infrastructures as critical, with potential catastrophic failures affecting large populations and incurring significant economic losses, necessitating additional protective measures during heightened security concerns.
Public safety is a primary concern for the Army Corps, guiding their policies and regulations regarding visitor conduct at their projects. Their recreation mission emphasizes providing safe outdoor experiences, with conflicts among visitors stemming from issues like alcohol use, overcrowding, and differing music preferences. Surveys indicate that Park Rangers face challenges such as substance abuse, fights, vandalism, theft, and domestic violence, with many experiencing verbal threats and some encountering physical confrontations. Rangers are not authorized to carry firearms or enforce federal laws, except for issuing citations for regulatory violations. Local law enforcement agreements can enhance security during peak visitation times, defined by increased risk to visitor safety.
The Allatoona Lake project, authorized by Congress in the 1940s, serves multiple purposes including flood control, power generation, and recreation, with construction completed in 1950. It covers approximately 25,747 land acres, 12,010 water acres, and 270 miles of shoreline, located about thirty miles from Atlanta, Georgia. Allatoona Lake is one of the most visited Army Corps lakes, attracting over six million visitors annually in recent years, and reporting the highest visitor hours among all Army Corps projects.
As of 1998, 45% of the 122 miles of shoreline at Allatoona Lake was designated for public recreation. In fiscal year 2012, the primary activities at the property included swimming (2.67 million visitors), boating (1.88 million), fishing (883,474), picnicking (764,509), sightseeing (161,307), water skiing (137,937), camping (110,789), hunting (33,968), and other activities (972,721). The MeKaskey Creek Campground, located in Bartow County and covering approximately twelve square miles, has 51 campsites and operates from late March to early September. Between 2013 and 2015, campground reservations averaged 8,220 (2013), 8,736 (2014), and 5,224 (2015) visitors, with average stays of 2.56 to 2.75 days. In fiscal year 2011, the property employed 15 Army Corps Park Rangers, who issued two citations for firearm violations between 2013 and 2014, none at the MeKaskey Creek Campground. The Allatoona Dam, located about twelve miles south of the campground, is 1,250 feet long and 880 feet high, with restricted public access due to security.
In 2012, Bartow County law enforcement reported to the FBI a total of 329 violent crimes, including 13 forcible rapes, 24 robberies, and 292 aggravated assaults, alongside 2,726 property crimes, which comprised 821 burglaries, 1,703 larceny/theft incidents, and 202 motor vehicle thefts. Comparatively, in 2011, the reported figures were 241 violent crimes (including 2 murders), 7 rapes, 37 robberies, and 195 aggravated assaults, with property crimes totaling 2,841, including 805 burglaries and 1,845 thefts. In 2010, there were 224 violent crimes (1 murder), 23 rapes, and 34 robberies, alongside 2,470 property crimes, 740 burglaries, and 1,515 thefts. The 2009 data showed 190 violent crimes (4 murders), 19 rapes, 29 robberies, and 2,430 property crimes, including 691 burglaries and 1,520 thefts.
Firearms use restrictions at Allatoona Lake have been in place since 1950. The Lake Thurmond project was authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1944, with construction completed in 1954. The property spans Columbia, Lincoln, and McDuffie Counties in Georgia, and McCormick County in South Carolina, with smaller portions in Warren, Wilkes, and Elbert Counties, Georgia, and Abbeville County, South Carolina. The property serves various purposes, including flood control, hydroelectric power production, recreation, and fish and wildlife management. As of 1995, it had approximately 71,100 acres of water surface and 75,237 acres of land, with 15% of the shoreline designated for public recreation as of 2001 and 18.3% of the total land area classified as recreational as of 1995.
Mistletoe State Park, a 1,920-acre facility in Columbia County, Georgia, is frequently visited by Plaintiff Barrs during the summer. The park is leased from the Army Corps by the State of Georgia and features various amenities, including twenty rental cottages, 107 campsites with electricity, thirty-five primitive campsites, 272 picnic sites, boat launching ramps, a beach and bathhouse, playgrounds, a nature trail, and an observation tower. The J. Strom Thurmond Dam, approximately ten miles west of the park, is a secured area with restricted public access.
Crime reports from the Columbia County sheriff's department indicate a range of violent and property crimes over the years 2009 to 2013. Notable statistics include:
- In 2013, 58 violent crimes, 1 murder, 11 rapes, 29 aggravated assaults, and 2,054 property crimes, including 287 burglaries and 1,695 thefts.
- In 2012, 68 violent crimes, 1 murder, 10 rapes, 20 robberies, and 2,297 property crimes, including 396 burglaries and 1,804 thefts.
- In 2011, 94 violent crimes, 4 murders, 19 rapes, 20 robberies, and 2,438 property crimes, including 452 burglaries and 1,900 thefts.
- In 2010, 72 violent crimes, 1 murder, 10 rapes, and 2,323 property crimes, including 376 burglaries and 1,860 thefts.
- In 2009, 119 violent crimes, 4 murders, 14 rapes, and 2,269 property crimes, including 353 burglaries and 1,795 thefts.
These statistics reflect the crime trends in the area surrounding Mistletoe State Park and the jurisdiction of Columbia County.
Between 2000 and 2014, the Army Corps issued no citations and four warnings for firearms regulation violations at Thurmond Lake, while issuing thirty-one citations and 224 warnings for project restriction violations. There were no citations or warnings for interference with park rangers during the same period. Firearms use restrictions at the Thurmond Lake project have been in place since 1951. The site experienced approximately five million annual visitors between 2008 and 2012.
Summary judgment can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) when there are no genuine disputes regarding material facts, with the movant required to demonstrate the appropriateness of summary judgment through record materials. If the movant meets this burden, the non-movant must present specific evidence showing a genuine issue for trial. The court evaluates motions for summary judgment by viewing evidence in favor of the non-movant, resolving reasonable doubts in their favor, and refraining from making credibility determinations or weighing conflicting evidence.
The Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller established the Second Amendment as protecting an individual's right to keep and bear arms, particularly emphasizing the right of law-abiding citizens to use firearms for self-defense in their homes. Heller also indicated that laws prohibiting handgun possession in the home violate the Second Amendment. However, there remains ambiguity regarding the extent of Second Amendment protections for carrying firearms outside the home and the evaluative framework for firearm regulation laws. This uncertainty is expected to lead to increased legal challenges against gun regulations nationwide.
In response to this lack of clarity, the Eleventh Circuit, along with most other circuits, has implemented a two-step approach for assessing Second Amendment challenges. The first step involves determining whether the activity in question is protected by the Second Amendment. If it is, the second step assesses the law's validity under the appropriate level of scrutiny. This two-step inquiry is consistent across various circuits, which analyze both the scope of the protected activity and the government's justification for any restrictions. The scrutiny applied varies based on how closely the law aligns with the core Second Amendment right and the degree of burden it imposes.
The Firearms Regulation's impact on a pre-existing right is evaluated through textual and historical analysis, focusing on the original meaning of rights in 1791, particularly regarding the right to carry firearms on Army Corps property. The Second Amendment is interpreted as recognizing a pre-existing right that cannot be infringed. However, the court finds it unlikely that such a right existed historically regarding the Army Corps.
Historical context is provided, noting that the Continental Army established a Chief Engineer and assistants in 1775, with engineers performing military functions during the Revolutionary War. Post-war, the debate over a standing army limited the use of engineering corps, which were formalized by Congress in 1802, establishing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Military Academy at West Point. During the War of 1812, engineers focused on constructing fortifications and supporting military operations. Although the Corps later expanded into civil works, its primary identity remained as a military branch, with oversight and funding linked to the Secretary of War.
The role of the Defendant Army Corps has evolved alongside the understanding of the Second Amendment, reflecting changes in national needs. Initially, the concept of federal ownership of wilderness recreational facilities would have been foreign to the framers of the Constitution. However, the Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized the Army Corps to develop and manage public park and recreational facilities related to water resource projects. Despite these modern functions, the Army Corps remains a crucial component of the U.S. Armed Forces, with oversight by the Secretary of the Army, who manages civil projects like flood control initiatives at Allatoona Lake.
The Army Corps is responsible for federal investigations and improvements of waterways, directed by the Secretary of the Army and supervised by the Chief of Engineers. The recreational facilities created by the Army Corps are secondary to essential dam construction projects aimed at flood protection, hydroelectric power generation, navigation enhancement, and resource provision for local communities. These dams are deemed critical infrastructure by the Department of Homeland Security, with the potential for catastrophic failures to significantly impact large populations and the economy.
Consequently, it is unlikely that the framers would have acknowledged a civilian's right to carry firearms on military property that houses vital national infrastructure. This perspective is reinforced by the significance of projects like Allatoona Lake and Thurmond Lake in relation to national security and public welfare.
Allatoona Lake was initially approved for flood control and power generation, later expanding its authorized purposes to include fish and wildlife management, streamflow regulation, water supply, and recreation. The property now serves seven designated functions: flood control, hydroelectric power generation, water supply, recreation, fish and wildlife management, water quality, and navigation. Located about thirty miles from Atlanta, Georgia, Allatoona Lake encompasses approximately 25,747 land acres and 12,010 water acres, featuring 270 miles of shoreline. The Allatoona Dam, situated twelve miles south of the McKaskey Creek Campground, is 1,250 feet long with an elevation of 880 feet above the roadway. Public access near the dam is restricted due to security concerns, and firearms restrictions on the property have been in place since 1950.
Lake Thurmond, similarly, has authorized purposes that include flood control, downstream navigation, hydroelectric power production, recreation, water quality and supply, and fish and wildlife management. As of 1995, it had a water surface area of about 71,100 acres and a land base of 75,237 acres, with approximately 15% of its shoreline designated for public recreation. Mistletoe State Park, a 1,920-acre park, operates on the Lake Thurmond property. The Thurmond Dam, located ten miles west of Mistletoe State Park, is 200 feet high and 5,680 feet long, with public access to the surrounding area generally restricted.
In reviewing Second Amendment case law post-Heller, the court found no precedents supporting the right to carry firearms on Army Corps property. The Heller decision did not define the extent of constitutional protection for firearm possession outside the home but acknowledged that restrictions in sensitive areas do not infringe on pre-existing rights. The court noted that the Army Corps' firearm regulations align with laws prohibiting gun possession in sensitive locations. Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in GeorgiaCarry I supports the conclusion that no pre-existing right exists to carry firearms on property owned by others, affirming that the law in question did not violate Second Amendment rights.
The GeorgiaCarry I case highlights the rights of private property owners, specifically places of worship, to prohibit firearms on their premises, establishing that such restrictions do not violate constitutional rights. Although the Defendant Army Corps is not a private property owner, it retains the authority to exclude civilians from its property, as supported by precedent. The Commander has discretion to manage access to military establishments, which aligns with the Eleventh Circuit’s view that property owners may restrict gun access. A ruling requiring the Army Corps to permit firearms could lead to broader restrictions on public access.
The right to carry firearms for self-defense is a core aspect of the Second Amendment, but the Court finds that the Firearms Regulation in question does not infringe upon this right. The Supreme Court has limited the right to bear arms primarily to self-defense within the home. Unlike other cases, such as Ezell and McDonald, which dealt with outright bans or significant burdens on gun ownership, the current Firearms Regulation does not impose such restrictions. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, as the right to bear arms does not extend to unrestricted carrying of firearms for any purpose.
The Seventh Circuit in Moore v. Madigan evaluated an Illinois law prohibiting the possession of loaded firearms outside the home, concluding that the Second Amendment, as interpreted in Heller and McDonald, includes a right to bear arms for self-defense beyond the home. Judge Posner emphasized that confining this right to the home diminishes the effectiveness of self-defense, particularly in public spaces. However, the Court noted that the Army Corps has the authority to restrict firearm possession on its properties, as Plaintiffs can avoid harm by choosing alternative recreational sites. Previous cases have found that carry restrictions on properties integral to daily life do not violate Second Amendment rights. The Court rejected the argument that Allatoona Lake and Thurmond Lake are not sensitive places solely because they are not schools or government buildings, clarifying that Heller does not limit sensitive places to indoor locations. Other courts have upheld firearm restrictions in outdoor sensitive areas, affirming the Army Corps' designation of these properties as sensitive, despite allowing firearms in specific hunting and shooting zones. The distance of recreational facilities from critical infrastructure does not negate their classification as sensitive places.
Defendant Army Corps emphasizes its commitment to public safety in all project areas, including recreation zones, asserting that the distance of these areas from dams does not negate their sensitivity. The Court concludes that the Firearms Regulation falls outside the Second Amendment’s scope, eliminating the need for further evaluation. Nevertheless, the Court explores the regulation's constitutional viability. It notes that, while the Second Amendment's interpretation is still evolving, another court previously determined that the Firearms Regulation undermines rights for lawful self-defense.
The Court identifies intermediate scrutiny as the applicable standard, distinguishing it from strict scrutiny, which requires a compelling government interest. It reasons that the Firearms Regulation represents a managerial action rather than legislative governance, which necessitates a lower scrutiny level. The Supreme Court has recognized a distinction between regulatory actions and those taken as a property owner. This rationale has been applied in previous cases, supporting the Court's decision to assess the regulation under intermediate scrutiny.
Possessing a firearm or ammunition on County property is classified as a misdemeanor. Courts have upheld restrictions on firearms in various contexts, emphasizing the government's "plenary power" to safeguard public safety on federal lands, particularly military properties. The military retains control over its lands, and individuals voluntarily present on such properties face limited restrictions on their Second Amendment rights.
The Court noted that bans on firearms in specific locations, such as recreational campsites, do not impose a significant burden on self-defense rights, as individuals can choose not to enter these areas. The Firearms Regulation in question does not constitute a severe infringement on these rights, unlike more critical public spaces. Additionally, the Court dismissed the argument for strict scrutiny based on the regulation being "content-based," clarifying that there is no precedent for applying First Amendment strict scrutiny principles to the Second Amendment. Other federal courts have similarly refrained from directly applying First Amendment doctrines to Second Amendment challenges, suggesting that the standards of scrutiny applicable to the Second Amendment may differ.
Assuming that the principles and doctrines of the First Amendment apply equally to the Second Amendment, or vice versa, is imprudent and could undermine First Amendment rights. There are significant differences in how the state can regulate these rights. The Court applies intermediate scrutiny to the Firearms Regulation, requiring the government to demonstrate a significant interest and to ensure a reasonable fit between that interest and the law, avoiding excessive burdens on conduct. The Defendant Army Corps has a substantial interest in providing safe and healthful recreational opportunities while protecting its resources, as indicated by its management of highly visited recreation areas, which attract over 370 million visits annually. This concern for public safety informs the policies governing visitor behavior on its lands. Conflicts among visitors, such as issues related to alcohol and noise, highlight the importance of maintaining safety in heavily frequented areas like Allatoona Lake, which saw over six million visitors in 2011 and 2012. The Court finds a reasonable fit between the Firearms Regulation and the safety interest it serves.
In 1998, Allatoona Lake property recorded 86,813,126 visitor hours, the highest among 450 Army Corps projects in the U.S., with over 92 million hours reported in 2006. Visitor activities included swimming (2.67 million), boating (1.88 million), fishing (883,474), picnicking (764,509), sightseeing (161,307), water skiing (137,937), camping (110,789), hunting (33,968), and other activities (972,721). The potential allowance of loaded firearms in these high-traffic recreational areas raises significant safety concerns for both the public and the Army Corps Park Rangers, who faced challenges in managing such volume even without firearms present. In 2011, there were only 15 Park Rangers at Allatoona Lake, which complicates their ability to regulate safely. Similarly, Lake Thurmond, receiving about five million visitors annually from 2008 to 2012, presents analogous safety issues if firearms were permitted. The court upheld the Army Corps’ decision to restrict loaded firearms, citing the need to prevent conflicts and enhance safety in these crowded areas.
Moreover, the Firearms Regulation is deemed necessary for protecting critical infrastructure, such as dams, which could have catastrophic consequences if compromised. The Army Corps and Homeland Security regard these structures as vital for national security and the economy, justifying stringent firearm restrictions in their vicinity. Park Rangers are not armed and lack the authority to enforce federal laws, relying on local law enforcement for serious incidents, which limits their policing capabilities. The plaintiffs' claim of unconstitutionality regarding the Firearms Regulation, based on a perceived lack of individualized assessment for licensed concealed carry permit holders, was countered by precedent that upheld similar regulations.
The plaintiff in Bonidy contended that the regulation was overly broad, asserting that the USPS should implement site-specific safety policies to accommodate customers wishing to carry firearms in rural areas, particularly since his local post office mandated personal mail pickup. The Tenth Circuit dismissed this argument, clarifying that the USPS is not obligated to customize its safety regulations for each of its 31,000 locations or individual customer circumstances. The court emphasized that intermediate scrutiny does not necessitate a precise alignment between regulatory objectives and individual circumstances. It noted the impracticality of requiring the USPS to establish separate gun policies for each property, highlighting the varying state and local gun carry laws and the absence of a national firearms carry permit registry. The court reinforced that local regulations do not supersede federal laws, thus Bonidy's right to carry in Colorado does not challenge the USPS regulation's constitutionality. As a federal entity, the USPS can enforce a uniform national rule concerning firearm possession on its properties. The court found that such regulations, while impacting individuals differently, are preferable to a fragmented system of exceptions, which would complicate fairness and enforcement. The Firearms Regulation was deemed adequately aligned with the USPS's safety interests under intermediate scrutiny, and the court also rejected claims regarding inconsistencies in firearm possession rules, such as the allowance for "duck hunters" to carry firearms at the same locations contested by the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs James and Barrs have not specified any recreational areas on Army Corps properties where hunting is allowed, which is essential to their claims. The regulations indicate that campgrounds where they seek to carry loaded firearms are separate from designated hunting areas. Even for hunting, loaded firearms can only be possessed in specified areas. The Army Corps’ decision to restrict firearms in recreational areas is justified by the need to maintain public safety and protect critical infrastructure, given the high visitor density and potential conflicts. The plaintiffs' preference for allowing firearms for self-defense does not change this conclusion. The Firearms Regulation, which limits firearm possession in these areas, is valid and not comparable to the handgun prohibition overturned in Heller, as it falls under the Army Corps' authority as a property owner. In Georgia, property owners can restrict firearm possession, which applies to the Army Corps' management of its properties. The regulation's enforcement through criminal penalties does not alter its validity. The Court concludes that even if the regulation affects the Plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it withstands intermediate scrutiny, and thus the Court dismisses their as-applied challenges.
The Court determined that the Firearms Regulation does not infringe upon the Plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights. Even if it were to affect those rights, the regulation would pass intermediate scrutiny, confirming its constitutionality as applied to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff GCO launched a facial challenge to the Firearms Regulation, which aims to invalidate the regulation itself rather than its application. The burden rests on the challenger to demonstrate that the law could never be applied constitutionally. The Court found that both the Plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge and GCO's facial challenge were unsuccessful, as the regulation is valid in its applications. Additionally, the Second Amendment does not grant individuals the right to carry firearms on private property against the owner's wishes. Consequently, the enforcement of the Carry Law against a license holder violating property owner instructions is constitutional. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs’ challenges were all without merit, granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, and dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims. The case is to be permanently closed. The Court did not rely on the Amicus Curiae Brief from Everytown for Gun Safety in its ruling and noted that the Plaintiffs did not adequately address due process issues in their brief opposing summary judgment.
Land managed by the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service is primarily remote and minimally developed. All Plaintiffs possess standing to challenge the Firearms Regulation due to their serious interest in activities that may be subject to prosecution under the regulation, as established in GeorgiaCarry Org v. Georgia. The Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, but did not invalidate any specific laws. The case of Caetano v. Massachusetts determined that a law banning stun gun possession violated the Second Amendment, though this case does not involve a stun gun.
Plaintiffs GCO and James seek a declaration that the Firearms Regulation is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied. However, the Eleventh Circuit characterized their challenge as solely as-applied, noting the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the regulation would be unconstitutional under any circumstances. The district court found that the Second Amendment right is subject to locational restrictions, consistent with historical interpretations. Binding precedent from the Fifth Circuit prior to the formation of the Eleventh Circuit and the District of Idaho's ruling in Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reinforces that the right to keep and carry weapons is not absolute and can be regulated, especially on government property.
Plaintiffs lack a constitutional or statutory right to set up tents on Defendant Army Corps' property, contrasting with private or national park property. The assertion that allowing tents necessitates permitting firearms within them is deemed irrational. In the context of the Fourth Amendment, precedent from the Supreme Court indicates that voluntary actions by individuals can negate claims of constitutional infringement, as shown in Wyman v. James, where welfare recipients' consent to home visits was considered non-compulsory. Additionally, the Tenth Circuit's decision in Bonidy v. United States Postal Service upheld a firearms ban on USPS property, concluding that the Second Amendment does not extend to government buildings, including associated parking lots. The court emphasized that the parking lot is integrally linked to the postal building, thereby reinforcing the regulation's validity. Similarly, Defendant Army Corps' property is classified as government property, and thus the same reasoning applies.
Defendant Army Corps' property includes non-government buildings but maintains characteristics similar to government properties, such as restricted access. The Fourth Circuit's decision in Kolbe v. Hogan established that a Maryland law banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines substantially burdens Second Amendment rights, necessitating strict scrutiny. This law criminalizes the possession and transfer of certain firearms and magazines, with specific exceptions for law enforcement and retired officers. The regulation of firearms on Army Corps property does not raise the same concerns as the Maryland law since plaintiffs do not seek to carry firearms in designated hunting or sport shooting areas but challenge the Corps' broader regulatory authority. The Court acknowledges significant public safety and national security issues surrounding the Corps' infrastructure, which justifies the recreational areas being distanced from critical projects. While the Supreme Court's "undue burden" test applies to abortion access, the Court deems it inappropriate in this context, suggesting that intermediate scrutiny should be applied instead. The Firearms Regulation is characterized as a "place" restriction, and the plaintiffs’ reference to United States v. Grace is deemed irrelevant as it pertains to First Amendment public forum issues.
In Grace, the Supreme Court ruled that 40 U.S.C. 13k, which prohibits certain flags and devices in the Supreme Court building and grounds, does not extend to public sidewalks, which are considered a public forum. The court did not extend the First Amendment's "public forum" doctrine to Second Amendment cases. In GeorgiaCarry III, the court dismissed the argument that the regulation was as destructive to the right to bear arms as the one in Heller, which involved a complete ban on handgun possession in homes. The regulation at issue only applies to specific Corps property designated for recreation, allowing individuals to exercise their right to bear arms in other areas, such as homes and streets. The court emphasized the voluntary nature of the plaintiffs' presence at the Allatoona campgrounds and noted the availability of other recreational locations where their rights remain intact. The narrow scope of the regulation distinguishes it from broader regulations in precedent cases, ultimately concluding that the regulation does not infringe upon the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights. Any potential facial challenge by Plaintiffs James and Barr would similarly fail due to these reasons.
