| Lane v. Holder (DC) (VA) |
|
If successful, Lane v. Holder will declare provisions of CGA68 limiting handgun purchases to one's state of residence unconstitutional. Michelle Lane and the other plaintiffs are residents of the District of Columbia who are unable to exercise a fundamental right because the District's only firearms dealer is no longer in operation. Provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA68) prohibit individuals from acquiring handguns anywhere other than in their state of residence. The individual plaintiffs in this case are all residents of the District of Columbia in which there are no Federal Firearms Licensees (FLLs) operating retail businesses. This action challenges the federal prohibition on interstate handgun transfers as well as laws in both Virginia and the District of Columbia that prevent the plaintiffs from purchasing firearms that are perfectly legal to own in the District. This provision of GCA68 is the federal statute that enables the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to restricted the numbers of types of handguns available to it's residents. The Commonwealth restricts the availability of many firearms in common use through the 'Approved Weapons Roster' (501 CMR 7.00) maintained by the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) and the Attorney General's regulation of handgun sales through 940 CMR 16.00. A victory by the plaintiffs may very well obviate these prohibitions as Massachusetts residents would be able to purchase handguns from any FFL as is the case with long guns. This case is supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. Alan Gura n is the plaintiffs' attorney. Court: Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Updates:
|