Opinion ID: 2320571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Constitutionality of CPWL and PFCV Statutes

Text: Finally, appellant contends, for the first time on appeal, that D.C.Code § 22-4504(a) and (b) are unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), and that, therefore, his convictions must be reversed. See Kleinbart v. United States, 604 A.2d 861, 870 (D.C.1992) (When intervening constitutional rulings necessitate a change in prior law, a division of this court is empowered to recognize that earlier decisions no longer have force.). [20] Since Heller, we have several times rejected the argument that these firearms regulation statutes are facially invalid: [The qualifications for firearms registration] are compatible with the core interest protected by the Second Amendment. See Plummer v. United States, 983 A.2d 323, 325 (D.C.2009) (as amended on denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, May 20, 2010) (We ... hold that the UF and CPWL statutes are not facially invalid.); Howerton v. United States, 964 A.2d 1282, 1289 (D.C.2009) ([T]he Supreme Court reasoned in Heller [] [that] the Second Amendment protects `bearing arms for a lawful purpose' by `law-abiding, responsible citizens ... in defense of hearth and home.' (quoting Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2813, 2821)). Although the Supreme Court did not consider the particulars of the District of Columbia's registration and licensing requirements, nothing in Heller compels the District to register a firearm for a resident who does not satisfy these statutory requirements. Lowery v. United States, 3 A.3d 1169, 1176 (D.C.2010) (second, third, and fourth alterations in original). See also Pleasant-Bey v. United States, 988 A.2d 496, 504 n. 6 (D.C.2010). Accordingly, we reject this challenge to the constitutionality of D.C.Code § 22-4504(a) and (b). For the foregoing reasons, appellant's convictions are hereby affirmed. So ordered.