Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    15,286
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Federal Judge Rules Ban on Interstate Handgun Sales UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    Well... this is certainly interesting.

    The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today won a major federal court ruling in a case involving interstate handgun transfers in which the judge applied strict scrutiny to determine whether a ban on such transfers meets constitutional muster.
    The case, which was financially supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, is known as Mance v. Holder. It involves plaintiffs residing in the District of Columbia and Texas, and could have far-reaching ramifications, according to CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.


    “Our lawsuit strikes at the heart of a debate that has been ongoing for several years, since the creation of the National Instant Check System (NICS),” Gottlieb said. “With the advent of the NICS system, it makes no sense to perpetuate a ban on interstate transfers of handguns.”

    Indeed, in his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, writes, “(T)he Court finds that the federal interstate handgun transfer ban burdens conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment.”

    The judge later added, “By failing to provide specific information to demonstrate the reasonable fit between this ban and illegal sales and lack of notice in light of the Brady Act amendments to the 1968 Gun Control Act, the ban is not substantially related to address safety concerns. Thus, even under intermediate scrutiny, the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is unconstitutional on its face.”

    CCRKBA and the individual plaintiffs are represented by Virginia attorney Alan Gura.
    “It is bizarre and irrational to destroy the national market for an item that Americans have a fundamental right to purchase,” Gura observed. “Americans would never tolerate a ban on the interstate sale of books or contraceptives. And Americans are free to buy rifles and shotguns outside their state of residence, so long as the dealers respect the laws of the buyer’s home state. We’re gratified that the Court agreed that handguns should be treated no differently.”

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    So can you give us a little more background on this?

    I know here in TX if you want to buy a shotgun or a rifle you can do it without a TX driver's license. But in order to purchase a hand gun you are required by law to have a TX driver's license.

    I am wondering if all that is tied in together somehow.

    I am kind of a geek on this sort of thing so I am wondering if the law that was written bans the transfer of handguns across state lines? If so then why can I buy pistols from gunbroker from out of state?

    I guess a lot of people on gunbroker could buy a gun from the internet and have it shipped to them, they just can't come buy one and pick it up in person despite the NCIC records checks that are required would be identical regardless of which state they are ran in.

    (For the record I spent over 4 years running NCIC and other criminal records checks every single day, sometimes 10 or 20 a day, or more)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Unfree State (MD)
    Posts
    2,731
    Downloads
    3
    Uploads
    0
    If you buy a pistol in any state but your resident state it has to go through a FFL in your state. This ruling says that is Unconstitutional.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SINNER View Post
    If you buy a pistol in any state but your resident state it has to go through a FFL in your state. This ruling says that is Unconstitutional.
    To me that is great. Based on your comment I don't see much downside to this ruling.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Not without an FFL they aren't. You can order and pay for a firearm on-line, but it most certainly needs to be shipped to a FFL and then after clearing the background check transferred to the buyer.

    I just don't want anyone improperly quoting this to claim you can get guns shipped to the buyer directly from an internet vendor.
    ABSOLUTELY!

    That is not what I meant by any means.

    SINNER's post clarified what I meant better than I could.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    N. KY
    Posts
    3,056
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    I read the judges decision, and was fairly surprised how simply he explained it. It was actually a test case, but can now open up a whole can of worms, in a good way.
    NRA Life Member
    Deplorables Life Member
    Bible and Gun Clinger
    Filthy Stinking Wal Mart Shopper


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    An NCIC records check will return the exact same results whether it is ran from Texas or Indiana or Florida or where ever. If they are relying mainly on NCIC for the records checks the interstate ban is pretty dumb. Going through the check in ANY STATE gives the exact same results as it relies on the exact same database.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by FortTom View Post
    I read the judges decision, and was fairly surprised how simply he explained it. It was actually a test case, but can now open up a whole can of worms, in a good way.
    I have to plead somewhat ignorant to other state's laws on handgun ownership...but if this is allowed to stay put as ruled and it's the way we are all interpreting it, it will put a dent in each state's attempts at local gun control.

    If JoeBob is driving through Idaho (or where ever) and stops and legally buys a gun based on federal standards and drives on to some other state that say aren't as friendly and that may have additional requirements for handgun purchases....what will happen then? It will in some ways restrict those states that are trying to add additional requirements onto handgun ownership.

    It's no different than one county being 'dry' so everyone just drives half an hour over to one county next door that isn't to buy their alcohol.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Unfree State (MD)
    Posts
    2,731
    Downloads
    3
    Uploads
    0
    No, you still have to adhere to YOUR state's laws. As does the gun shop. While this is a great step, for people in commie states it means little, as most gun shops will just not sell to those residents. Like you see all the time with no CA sales.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SINNER View Post
    No, you still have to adhere to YOUR state's laws. As does the gun shop. While this is a great step, for people in commie states it means little, as most gun shops will just not sell to those residents. Like you see all the time with no CA sales.
    So if a shop decided to sell to whoever they wanted (as long as they pass the NCIC) then what recourse would any other state have against that shop?

    The onus would be on the buyer to follow their own state's regulations. But it seemingly wouldn't burden the shop owner with those issues. But I could be wrong.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    497
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SINNER View Post
    If you buy a pistol in any state but your resident state it has to go through a FFL in your state. This ruling says that is Unconstitutional.

    It says it's unconstitutional in parts of northern and central Texas. IF you can find an out of state FFL that a) knows about it and b) is willing to take a chance. Doubtful, IMHO. The ruling does not apply outside of that Federal District Court jurisdiction.

    This is an interesting development, but it's only real value is if the Appeals Court of the 5th Circuit (generally 2A-friendly) upholds the ruling when it's appealed (and it will be), and then if SCOTUS hears it and then rules it unconstitutional (or declines to hear the appeal). In that case a California resident might be able to buy a handgun in Arizona, for example, but they still wouldn't be able to bring it legally into California.

    .
    Last edited by Hmac; 11 February 2015 at 17:59.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Unfree State (MD)
    Posts
    2,731
    Downloads
    3
    Uploads
    0
    Right from the ATF's website. Dealer bears as much responsibility in knowing the purchasers state laws as his own. So just selling to a CA resident a weapon that is banned is illegal. Regardless of where the weapon is taken.

    Q: May a licensed dealer sell a firearm to a non-licensee who is a resident of another State?

    Generally, a firearm may not lawfully be sold by a licensed dealer to a non-licensee who resides in a State other than the State in which the seller’s licensed premises is located. However, the sale may be made if the firearm is shipped to a licensed dealer whose business is in the purchaser’s State of residence and the purchaser takes delivery of the firearm from the dealer in his or her State of residence. In addition, a licensee may sell a rifle or shotgun to a person who is not a resident of the State where the licensee’s business premises is located in an over-the-counter transaction, provided the transaction complies with State law in the State where the licensee is located and in the State where the purchaser resides.

    [18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3)]

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,070
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SINNER View Post
    Right from the ATF's website. Dealer bears as much responsibility in knowing the purchasers state laws as his own. So just selling to a CA resident a weapon that is banned is illegal. Regardless of where the weapon is taken.

    Q: May a licensed dealer sell a firearm to a non-licensee who is a resident of another State?

    Generally, a firearm may not lawfully be sold by a licensed dealer to a non-licensee who resides in a State other than the State in which the seller’s licensed premises is located. However, the sale may be made if the firearm is shipped to a licensed dealer whose business is in the purchaser’s State of residence and the purchaser takes delivery of the firearm from the dealer in his or her State of residence. In addition, a licensee may sell a rifle or shotgun to a person who is not a resident of the State where the licensee’s business premises is located in an over-the-counter transaction, provided the transaction complies with State law in the State where the licensee is located and in the State where the purchaser resides.

    [18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3)]
    Sinner, that is exactly the clause that this judge just struck down:



    I'm not going to comment on what impact this may or may not have as I haven't read the full ruling and I'm sure there will be a few more legal challenges before any impacts (if there are any) are actually practically implemented nationwide.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •