Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club, Ltd.; Mark Hester; John R. Sylvester; Marshall Kenneth Watkins; B — Strine, J…

Summary

The dissent would have upheld longstanding regulations restricting firearm possession in Delaware state parks and forests, concluding that the Delaware Constitution's right to bear arms did not eliminate the State's authority to regulate firearms on its own property. It reasoned that the regulations were consistent with Delaware history, legislative intent, and the constitutional amendment's purpose, and alternatively that they regulated sensitive places and survived heightened scrutiny. The dissenting justices criticized the majority for importing modern federal constitutional doctrine into the interpretation of Delaware's Constitution.