Background
Dai’Quan Jarrvel Lane was convicted of possessing ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possessing a machinegun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). He appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia.
Relying on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, Lane argued that both statutes were facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to him. He acknowledged, however, that binding Fourth Circuit precedent foreclosed his claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit rejected Lane’s constitutional challenges and affirmed the criminal judgment. The court explained that United States v. Canada establishes that § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional, while United States v. Hunt forecloses as-applied challenges to that statute and holds that neither Bruen nor United States v. Rahimi displaced the circuit’s controlling precedent.
Lane’s challenge to § 922(o) was likewise foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision in United States v. Price, which held that machineguns are not in common use for a lawful purpose. Because a three-judge panel cannot overrule circuit precedent, the panel applied those decisions and affirmed without oral argument.
Key Takeaways
- Fourth Circuit precedent forecloses facial Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1).
- The circuit also continues to bar as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) under Bruen and Rahimi.
- The en banc court’s determination that machineguns are not in common lawful use foreclosed Lane’s challenge to § 922(o).
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision confirms that defendants raising Bruen-based challenges to these federal firearm restrictions remain bound by the Fourth Circuit’s decisions in Canada, Hunt, and Price. A three-judge panel cannot revisit those holdings absent contrary Supreme Court authority or a superseding en banc decision.