Kimberly LaFave, et al. v. The County of Fairfax, Virginia, et al.

Fairfax, Virginia civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of the so-called sensitive places doctrine, which allows the government to restrict the presence of firearms in certain locations.



A Fairfax County ordinance prohibits "[t]he possession, carrying, or transportation of any firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof” in various places. Fairfax County, Va., Code § 6-2-1(A).2 Among those places are "any public park owned or operated by the County, or by any authority or local government entity created or controlled by the County,” id. § 6-2-1(A)(2), and "any public street, road, alley, or sidewalk or public right-of-way or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public and is being used by or is adjacent to a County-permitted event or an event that would otherwise require a County permit,” id. § 6-2-1(A)(4).



To determine whether a firearms restriction passes constitutional muster, we use a two-step framework. First, we look to the "Second Amendment's plain text.” United States v. Price, 111 F.4th 392, 398 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1891 (2025). We consider (1) whether the person challenging the gun regulation is among "'the people whom the Second Amendment protects,'” (2) whether the person's weapons are "'in common use' for a lawful purpose,” and (3) whether the person's "proposed course of conduct” is covered by the textual right to keep or to bear arms. Id. at 400–01 (quoting

Bruen, 597 U.S. at 31–32). If so, "the Constitution presumptively protects [the challenger's] conduct.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24.



At the second step, "[t]he government must . . . justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. At this stage, "we must engage in reasoning by analogy to determine whether a historical regulation is a proper analogue for a distinctly modern firearm regulation.” Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F.4th 438, 462 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (cleaned up),cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1534 (2025).



Historical and modern regulations are likely proper analogues if they "impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and . . . that burden is comparably justified.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 29. "Why and how the [modern] regulation burdens the right” identified at the first step "are central” to the step two inquiry. United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 692 (2024).



Appellate Counsel: Stephen Porter Halbrook, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. Janet Rhiannon

Carter, EVERYTOWN LAW, New York, New York, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Earl N.

"Trey” Mayfield, III, CHALMERS, ADAMS, BACKER & KAUFMAN, LLC, Fairfax,

Virginia, for Appellants. Elizabeth D. Teare, Daniel Robinson, John W. Burton, OFFICE

OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Fairfax, Virginia; Douglas R. Kay, Thomas W.

Repczynski, Anders T. Sleight, OFFIT KURMAN, P.C., Tysons Corner, Virginia; William

J. Taylor, Jr., Priyanka Gupta Sen, Erik P. Fredericksen, New York, New York, Sana S.

Mesiya, EVERYTOWN LAW, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Mary B. McCord,

Washington, D.C., Ben Gifford, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection,

GEORGETOWN LAW, Brooklyn, New York, for Amicus City of Richmond. Brian L.

Schwalb, Attorney General, Caroline S. Van Zile, Solicitor General, Ashwin P. Phatak,

Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Anne A. Deng, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C.,

for Amicus District of Columbia. Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, Jane Elinor Notz,

Solicitor General, Sarah A. Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, Chicago, Illinois, for Amicus State of Illinois.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

CALIFORNIA, Sacramento, California, for Amicus State of California. William Tong,

Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT,

Hartford, Connecticut, for Amicus State of Connecticut. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HAWAII, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Amicus

State of Hawaii. Keith Ellison, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MINNESOTA, St. Paul, Minnesota, for Amicus State of Minnesota.

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

NEW JERSEY, Trenton, New Jersey, for Amicus State of New Jersey. Ellen F. Rosenblum,

Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OREGON, Salem,

Oregon, for Amicus State of Oregon. Peter F. Neronha, Attorney General, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RHODE ISLAND, Providence, Rhode Island, for

Amicus State of Rhode Island. Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON, Olympia, Washington, for Amicus State of

Washington. Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF COLORADO, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus State of Colorado. Kathleen

Jennings, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE,

Wilmington, Delaware, for Amicus State of Delaware. Andrea Campbell, Attorney

General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, Boston,

Massachusetts, for Amicus Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Aaron D. Ford, Attorney

General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEVADA, Carson City, Nevada,

for Amicus State of Nevada. Letitia James, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, New York, New York, for Amicus State of New

York. Michelle A. Henry, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF PENNSYLVANIA, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Amicus Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. Charity R. Clark, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF VERMONT, Montpelier, Vermont, for Amicus State of Vermont. George

J. Hazel, Hayley N. Lawrence, Washington, D.C., Seton H. O'Brien, Jamie Miller, New

York, New York, Caelin Moriarity Miltko, Denver, Colorado, Marie C. Baldwin, GIBSON,

DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Dallas, Texas; Douglas N. Letter, Shira Lauren Feldman,

BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, Washington, D.C.; Esther Sanchez-

Gomez, Billy Clark, GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, San

Francisco, California, for Amici Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Giffords Law

Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The district court granted summary judgment to the County, concluding (1) that

both restrictions regulate firearms in sensitive places consistent with the Second Amendment, and (2) that the events restriction isn’t unconstitutionally vague.



Affirmed