• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Federal court rules interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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:

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan

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:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

paramedic70002

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,440
Location
Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
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.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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:
Top