The Supreme Court overturned this holding. The Court's reasoning was based on three basic points. First, the Court held that Section 20, as interpreted in Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority, protects an individual right to bear arms outside the home. Second, the Court ruled that a borderline total prohibition of the right to bear arms cannot pass muster under any level of scrutiny. Finally, the Court found that unelected officials cannot enact regulations that ban fundamental rights under the Delaware Constitution.
The Court compared the text of the Second Amendment and that of Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution, which comparison revealed the extent to which Section 20 guarantees a more expansive set of rights than the U.S. Constitution. Based on this analysis, the Court found that the challenged regulations clearly violate Section 20. This is because the court held in Doe that Section 20 “specifically provides for the defense of self and family in addition to the home” and that it “protects the right to bear arms outside the home.”
Having noted the broad reach of Section 20 the Court then addressed the ability of officials to vary these rights. In State v. Bender, the Court found that the ability to amend the Constitution is not an exercise of a “general power of government” and thus falls under the Reserve Clause. The Court notes that while the precise meaning of the Reserve Clause may have been “lost in the mists of time” it at a minimum means that “unelected officials cannot enact regulations which totally ban fundamental rights set forth in Article I.”
The Court further engaged in a lengthy review of the history of the right to bear arms in Delaware. In broad strokes the Court asserts that Section 20 is the result of the cumulative effect of legislation and political tradition favoring an individual right to bear arms. The Court then notes that Section 20 was modeled on the Second Amendment, and that therefore the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in District of Colombia v. Heller serves as a confirmation that Section 20 protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for a variety of purposes, including the “core purpose” of self defense, both within and outside the home.
In addressing the regulations themselves, the Court noted that Delaware’s right to public carry for self-defense is “fundamental but not absolute”.  The Court recites a list of valid restrictions on gun possession including prohibitions on certain types of firearms, allowing courts to order people subject to PFA’s to surrender their firearms, banning possession of a firearm in a public place while under the influence, etc. However, the Court finds that a total ban of possession of firearms for self-defense in Delaware’s State Parks and Forests “is not the sort of restriction that passes constitutional muster.” Id.
This is because Section 20 protects a “bundle of rights—including hunting, recreation, and the defense of self, family, and State”. The fact that one of these rights, in this case hunting, may be exercised during some parts of the year by some citizens does not result in the requisite “wide class of cases” in which regulations can be constitutionally applied so as to enable it to survive a facial challenge.
Level of Scrutiny
In Heller the U.S. Supreme Court held that “complete prohibitions” of Second Amendment rights are automatically invalid and need not analyzed under any particular tier of scrutiny. Accordingly, because the regulations in this case do not allow any possession of firearms “one might legitimately argue that we need not apply any level of scrutiny”.
However, the Court found that even under intermediate scrutiny (the standard applied in Doe) the regulations would still fail, because the DOA and DNREC had not: (1) articulated their important government objective; (2) demonstrated that the regulations are substantially related to achieving those objectives; and (3) shown that they have not burdened the fundamental right to bear arms in self-defense more than is reasonably necessary to ensure that the asserted government objectives are met. Rather, the agencies relied heavily on their general interest in “law enforcement, keeping the peace, and public safety”. However, in Doe the Court held that to pass muster the state must show more mere “general safety concerns”. Moreover, even if the concerns were valid, the regulations burden the right to bear arms more than is reasonably necessary because they are out of step with acceptable, narrowly focused, place-based restrictions. For example, the restrictions at issue in Bridgeville were far more restrictive than 11 Del. C. § 1457, which creates the crime of possession of a weapon in a school zone, only when another independent offense is also committed in that place.
Furthermore, the Court points out that the General Assembly has already restricted counties and municipalities from regulating firearms in areas such as parking lots and parks. The Court held that it would strain credulity to believe that General Assembly would intend to forbid elected officials in the ‘historic City of New Castle’ from enacting firearms regulations, yet allow agency officials to ban firearms in the entirety of Redden State Forest, an area nearly five times as large.
The Court concludes by stating that responsible, law-abiding Delaware citizens should not have to give up access to state parks in order to enjoy their constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. Further, that a blanket place restriction, that bans firearms entirely, and which takes no account of areas that are actually ‘sensitive’, presents a situation where a facial challenge must succeed.
State officials have written a new version of a gun ban in state parks and forests following a recent state Supreme Court decision declaring a full ban unconstitutional.
The state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and state Department of Agriculture published emergency regulations this week, about three weeks after Supreme Court justices shot down the decades-old ban.
The revised rules outline specific places within parks and forests, such as visitor centers, group camping areas and lodges, where it will be illegal to carry weapons.
The emergency regulations are valid for 120 days, and then can be renewed for another 60 days. Both agencies said in a press release they plan to propose new, permanent regulations.
Further analysis, including excerpts from the very lengthy dissent, can be found at the Volokh Conspiracy. It remains to be seen whether the new regulations will be challenged.