689 F.Supp.3d 232
E.D. Va.2023Background
- Defendant Dai’Quan Jarrvel Lane, a convicted felon (convicted of perjury in 2021), was arrested after an Instagram livestream; officers recovered a Glock-style handgun with a machinegun conversion "Glock switch" and 20 rounds along his path of flight.
- ATF testing showed the switch enabled fully automatic fire; Lane admitted he knew the switch made the gun fully automatic and that he was a felon.
- A grand jury indicted Lane on Count One: possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and Count Two: possession of a machinegun, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).
- Lane moved to dismiss both counts on facial and as-applied Second Amendment grounds post-Bruen, arguing § 922(g)(1) and § 922(o) are unconstitutional under the Bruen text-and-history framework.
- The Government defended both statutes, relying on Heller dicta and Fourth Circuit precedent; the Court heard argument and denied Lane’s motion in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 922(g)(1) (felon-in-possession of firearm/ammunition) is unconstitutional under Bruen | Gov't: Heller’s statements that felon prohibitions are "presumptively lawful," plus Fourth Circuit precedent (Moore, Pruess), uphold § 922(g)(1); felons are not among "the people" protected | Lane: Bruen requires a fresh text-and-history inquiry; Heller dicta is not dispositive; § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional facially and as-applied | Denied. Court follows Fourth Circuit (Moore, Pruess) and Bruen step-one reasoning: felons are not among "the people," so § 922(g)(1) survives both facial and as-applied challenges |
| Whether § 922(o) (possession of machineguns) is unconstitutional under Bruen | Gov't: Machineguns are "dangerous and unusual," not protected by the Second Amendment; statute valid | Lane: Machineguns (including handguns with auto sears like a Glock switch) are bearable arms and sufficiently in common use to be protected | Denied. Court holds machineguns are dangerous and unusual (not in common use), so § 922(o) does not violate the Second Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to possess arms for self-defense and describes limitations like felon prohibitions)
- N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (adopts text-and-history test for Second Amendment challenges)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the states)
- United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2012) (upholds § 922(g)(1) against facial and as-applied challenges)
- United States v. Pruess, 703 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2012) (upholds § 922(g)(1) as applied to nonviolent felons)
- Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (identifies certain weapons as outside Second Amendment protection)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (historical precedent on types of arms protected by the Second Amendment)
- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (defining "the people" in Fourth Amendment context)