| Dearth v. Holder |
|
Dearth v. Holder challenges a key component of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA68) - that handguns be purchased in the buyer's state of residence. This case attempts to answer questions regarding the rights of a US citizen living outside the US who still wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights while physically visiting the US. A central provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA68) requires that individuals purchase handguns in their state of residence. Individuals who do not maintain a US residence of any type are automatically precluded from purchasing handguns. A successful outcome in Dearth might have interesting implications for the EOPPS Approved Handgun Roster and The Attorney General's regulation on handgun sales in 940 CMR 16.00. Stephan Dearth is US Citizen residing outside of the United States and wishes to purchase a handgun for use while visiting the US. Because Mr. Dearth does not reside in a US state, federal law prevents him from purchasing a handgun infringing upon his 2nd and 14th amendment rights. This case is supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. Alan Gura is the plaintiff's attorney. Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Updates: This case was originally captioned "Hodgkins v. Holder". The DC District Court initially dismissed the case after determining that the parties lacked standing as they had suffered no actual harm. Citing the Navegar line of cases, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs could not meet pre-enforcement standing requirements because they had not been personally threatened with prosecution. In short, establishing standing would have required plaintiffs to have actually purchased handguns while visiting the US and to have been threatened with prosecution for doing so - an unlikely event without the cooperation of an FFL also willing to be threatened with prosecution. Stephan Dearth is continuing the case and has appeal the District Court's decision to dismiss to suit for lack of standing. Oral arguments on the issue of standing were heard on Monday November 15, 2010 by a three judged panel. The dismissal by the lower courts was reversed and the case was remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings.
|