Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Federal court rules interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional

  1. #1
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    Federal court rules interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional

    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Right now that's great news for the Northern District of Texas. Let's see if it withstands appeal at least to the federal circuit court level. Once there some other Circuits may cite it in a similar ruling, thus opening the opportunity for SCOTUS to decide "once and for all". [Yes, some sarcasm intended there.]

    Gotta see if there is i specific fund to support this effort.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    This is great news for people who live close to state borders or visitors who see a gun they want in an out of town gun shop.

    This is good for all of us, if upheld, because it's yet another case applying strict scrutiny. To some extent, this standard of review ties the hands of anti gun judges. For example, even though judge Posner was anti gun, he still had to invalidate Illinios' ban on carry outside the home and that state must now issue the privilege cards.
    Last edited by 77zach; 02-11-2015 at 04:15 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I look forward to reading the actual text of the ruling, but based on what I have read second-hand so far in a handful of news sources, it appears that the Judge's legal rational behind the ruling was that the Federal ban on interstate handgun purchases was unconstitutional because it prevented the existence and operation of a border-less national handgun market, thus a violation of the Second Amendment.

    Awesome! If this ruling survives appeal (which it should) then many of the restrictive states will have a (well-deserved) legal problem defending some of their silly state/local handgun purchase permit requirements. The existence of some of these regulatory schemes would obviously directly interfere with the very same 'national handgun' market that now would come into existence as an unavoidable result of the lifting of the Federal ban.

    Just my 2 cents.
    Last edited by OC4me; 02-11-2015 at 04:20 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    I look forward to reading the actual text of the ruling, but based on what I have read second-hand so far in a handful of news sources, it appears that the Judge's legal rational behind the ruling was that the Federal ban on interstate handgun purchases was unconstitutional because it prevented the existence and operation of a border-less national handgun market, thus a violation of the Second Amendment.

    Awesome! If this ruling survives appeal (which it should) then many of the restrictive states will have a (well-deserved) legal problem defending some of their silly state/local handgun purchase permit requirements. The existence of some of these regulatory schemes would obviously directly interfere with the very same 'national handgun' market that now would come into existence as an unavoidable result of the lifting of the Federal ban.

    Just my 2 cents.
    That's right, but he did apply strict scrutiny. He also said the law failed intermediate scrutiny as well.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    This would be the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Northern District of Texas which jurisdiction is Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. Hardly national.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I have sold guns to folks outside my state of residence previously...I know that such restrictions are bogus. I did not need a judge to tell me..but its nice to see at least one judge who understands something of our rights.

    So far, all my actions as a FFL in the past have been found to be OK, even in the courts.

    I know of other FFls who have acted similarly but they take a huge risk in standing up for our rights.

    If one does not have the balls to expose themselves to possible prison time, I always recommend caution and to understand the risks, like Dumbledore does.

  8. #8
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    My reading of the case is that FFLs would have to comply with the laws of the state (locality) that the buyer resides in, vice their own state of business ownership.

    I would NOT want to be put in that position, determining if I could sell a handgun to Bob from Cali/NYC/NJ/HI etc. Then being prosecuted for violating a law that I was not aware of, from a state I had never been in.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    My reading of the case is that FFLs would have to comply with the laws of the state (locality) that the buyer resides in, vice their own state of business ownership.

    I would NOT want to be put in that position, determining if I could sell a handgun to Bob from Cali/NYC/NJ/HI etc. Then being prosecuted for violating a law that I was not aware of, from a state I had never been in.
    +1

    The obvious solution is to remove all laws banning sales to anyone free to walk the street.

    Next after this would be for the laws of the State in which the sale takes place to govern the sale; while the laws of the State into which the gun may be taken can govern possession.

    After all, what State presumes to tell their residents that since prostitution is illegal here at home, it is also illegal for you to go to Nevada and pay for sex there? Ditto for liquor laws. Go out of State, or across county lines, buy a drink even if it is illegal to do so at home. If there are laws limiting importation of alcohol to your home State or county, that is on the resident who brings in the alcohol, not on the guy in another State who legally sold him the alcohol.

    Of course, unlike alcohol that is constitutionally subject to State laws, the RsKBA are protected from State level infringement.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    My reading of the case is that FFLs would have to comply with the laws of the state (locality) that the buyer resides in, vice their own state of business ownership.

    I would NOT want to be put in that position, determining if I could sell a handgun to Bob from Cali/NYC/NJ/HI etc. Then being prosecuted for violating a law that I was not aware of, from a state I had never been in.
    This has already been the case for long guns. Nothing changes except now the same rules apply to handguns, also, instead of no choice.

    A dealer is still able to NOT do the sale to nonresidents. Many dealers have already been doing this with long guns so that they don't have to worry about the other state's laws on their customer.

    All this ruling did was make handguns the same as long guns for those dealers and customers who both WANT to proceed with the sale.
    Last edited by MAC702; 02-12-2015 at 06:36 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  11. #11
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    This ruling, if it survives appeal, would bode well for Washington state's restrictive gun transfer law that was enacted this year.

    Very interesting!
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  12. #12
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    This ruling, if it survives appeal, would bode well for Washington state's restrictive gun transfer law that was enacted this year.

    Very interesting!
    I was thinking the same thing, and this may be where this is headed. First they get a precedence, they then go after DC.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 02-13-2015 at 05:45 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  13. #13
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I was thinking the same thing, and this may be where this is headed. First they get a precedence, they they go after DC.
    Yes, I posted a heads up on the Washington state section. Hopefully something can be done to get a stay or a repeal on any portion of the law that conflicts with interstate transactions.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

Posting Permissions

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