Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Federal Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban Struck Down

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Federal Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban Struck Down


  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Sure that this will cause many antis to have severe stomach distress - I just can't bear to watch ....
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    Holy crap. This is big stuff. I see very little wiggle room for an appeal here. I'm no lawyer, but this seems to be a pretty concrete ruling.

    Now, the inevitable attempt by the weasel horde to get out of this one.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    Holy crap. This is big stuff. I see very little wiggle room for an appeal here. I'm no lawyer, but this seems to be a pretty concrete ruling.

    Now, the inevitable attempt by the weasel horde to get out of this one.
    An appeal is actually required before we know the national implications and I for one hope that the government decides to do so (and then loses of course). As it is now, this decision only covers a handful of states.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    If the outcome of this just does away with the differentiation between handguns and long guns for out of state purchases, Washington residents will still be out of luck because the law will still require out of state FFLs to follow the laws of the buyer as well as their own state and Washington requires the local background check form to be completed and sent to local LEO for handgun purchases which an out of state FFL will not be able to comply with.
    Bingo! If the decision survives, there will be plenty of state/local regulatory schemes (such as the BS described above that Washington DC residents must endure) that will be low-hanging fruit to challenge in follow-up litigation. Basically, any such state/local regulations would have to survive (hopefully) strict-scrutiny as well. If a DC resident finds it (practically) impossible to purchase handguns anywhere else in the U.S. as a result of a DC pre-purchase requirement, then the district will have to justify their regulation under a second-amendment framework and (again hopefully) strict scrutiny.

    We will have to wait and see. This assumes the current make-up of SCOTUS remains the same (it won't). The antis have time on their side though. All they have to do is stretch out litigation for years and hope that one of the conservatives on the Supreme Court is replaced via a liberal (a certainty if Hillary is elected) and the 2A will become an effective dead letter.
    Last edited by OC4me; 02-12-2015 at 10:06 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    If the outcome of this just does away with the differentiation between handguns and long guns for out of state purchases, Washington residents will still be out of luck because the law will still require out of state FFLs to follow the laws of the buyer as well as their own state and Washington requires the local background check form to be completed and sent to local LEO for handgun purchases which an out of state FFL will not be able to comply with.
    I don't see how the state has jurisdiction over other state's residents ... is this enforceable is my query ?

  7. #7
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Bingo! If the decision survives, there will be plenty of state/local regulatory schemes (such as the BS described above that Washington DC residents must endure) that will be low-hanging fruit to challenge in follow-up litigation. Basically, any such state/local regulations would have to survive (hopefully) strict-scrutiny as well. If a DC resident finds it (practically) impossible to purchase handguns anywhere else in the U.S. as a result of a DC pre-purchase requirement, then the district will have to justify their regulation under a second-amendment framework and (again hopefully) strict scrutiny.

    We will have to wait and see. This assumes the current make-up of SCOTUS remains the same (it won't). The antis have time on their side though. All they have to do is stretch out litigation for years and hope that one of the conservatives on the Supreme Court is replaced via a liberal (a certainty if Hillary is elected) and the 2A will become an effective dead letter.
    I have been trying to drive this point home for a long time, some see Hillary the same as a conservative evil politician. That may be so, but we will lose our guns eventually if she is elected. We will all become potential felons if we hang onto our guns when they demand we turn them in.

    It is not a matter of IF, it is a matter of WHEN if Hillary is elected. If she is not hopefully all the elderly conservatives will retire so they can be replaced with younger conservatives.

    IMO this is exactly why the feds have not been pushing the GFSZA, they fear a loss at this time. So they will wait until the scope of SCOTUS changes. Then they will probably stretch the school zone even further as a first step.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 02-17-2015 at 01:00 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

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    519
    If the interstate handgun transfer ban does indeed fall nationwide, there could be significant changes to the FFL's business model and the way that handguns are sold.

    Recall what happened when the interstate banking ban was repealed in the 1980's. Small banks and financial institutions could no longer compete and a wave of bankruptcies and consolidations took place. The banking industry evolved to be heavily dominated by a small handful of mega-banks. Could that happen to the handgun industry? Who knows? We don't know how this case will ultimately shake out anyway.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    If the interstate handgun transfer ban does indeed fall nationwide, there could be significant changes to the FFL's business model and the way that handguns are sold.

    Recall what happened when the interstate banking ban was repealed in the 1980's. Small banks and financial institutions could no longer compete and a wave of bankruptcies and consolidations took place. The banking industry evolved to be heavily dominated by a small handful of mega-banks. Could that happen to the handgun industry? Who knows? We don't know how this case will ultimately shake out anyway.
    The idea that megabanks have eclipsed regionals is a bit of a misnomer: "While these banks might maintain local branches, their main scope is in financial centers like New York, where they get involved with international transactions and underwriting" (The Industry Handbook: The Banking Industry, Investopedia, 2015). Regional and thrift banks "are the smaller financial institutions, which primarily focus on one geographical area within a country. In the U.S., there are six regions: Southeast, Northeast, Central, etc. Providing depository and lending services is the primary line of business for regional banks" (Ibid).

    Then there's the credit unions...

    There are two essential distinctions between a bank and a credit union. First, a credit union is a not-for-profit organization. As big banks bloat to mammoth proportions with record profits based on a “too big to fail” platform, the not-for-profit nature of credit unions may be their most compelling feature of all.

    The second major difference between CUs and big banks is that banks are giant corporations controlled by ultra-wealthy board members, while credit unions are member-owned. That’s right, join a credit union and you’re an owner. Now that doesn't mean you get a big corner office with your own miniature putting green, but it does give you a sense of ownership and pride, for what that’s worth.

    If you’re a fan of small businesses, credit unions may also float your boat. According to the Credit Union National Association, a trade association for the industry, each of the nation’s four largest banks are larger than the entire credit union industry as a whole. (Source)

    I'm a big fan of credit unions. As "non-profits," they plough equity back in the local communities.
    Last edited by since9; 04-27-2015 at 04:43 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    519
    Would any attorneys like to chime in here? Does this decision apply only in the circuit in Texas? Or does the judge's injunction prohibit the BATFE, a federal agency, from enforcing these provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 anywhere?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    This is

    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    Would any attorneys like to chime in here? Does this decision apply only in the circuit in Texas? Or does the judge's injunction prohibit the BATFE, a federal agency, from enforcing these provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 anywhere?
    one district court decision in Texas (not circuit). To gain the benefit on this decision, you would have to file suit in your district and gain a similarly favorable ruling. Interesting decision but not very significant - yet. No FFL (even in N. Texas) is likely to conduct business differently based upon this case. If and when you have a CCA signing on to this decision, then you will have something worth writing home about. I didn't see anything about an injunction. ATF is free to conduct business as usual in the rest of the nation.

    As to jurisdiction over non-residents. If you are from Idaho and want to purchase a firearm in Texas, you are subject to Texas law (maybe Idaho as well). Is that the question you are asking? If not, please restate.

    It should also be noted that in the context of a non-FFL acquisition, this decision can only be sustained by the implementation of universal background checks. So for now, buying a rifle from private citizen Billy Bob in a different state will still require an FFL to be in the game.

    The comparison to interstate banking is inapt. I wouldn't spend much time chatting about it.
    Last edited by apjonas; 05-19-2015 at 02:49 PM. Reason: add

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    It was a rather interesting read. Knocked it down on 2A strict and intermediate scrutiny and as a 5A violation as well.

    To a layman, it sounds like very solid reasoning and fact finding. I'm sure to gov't attorneys it is full of loopholes and points of challenge. Like other said, we shall see. I continue to be heartened though by decision such as this which seem to be chipping away bit by bit at the 2A regulatory scheme.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    It was a rather interesting read. Knocked it down on 2A strict and intermediate scrutiny and as a 5A violation as well.

    To a layman, it sounds like very solid reasoning and fact finding. I'm sure to gov't attorneys it is full of loopholes and points of challenge. Like other said, we shall see. I continue to be heartened though by decision such as this which seem to be chipping away bit by bit at the 2A regulatory scheme.
    Agreed, and it's the latest in a fairly long trend of beating back the anti-2A weeds.

    In deference to apjonas, I would like to bring up St. John v. Alamogordo. Judge Black's 2009 ruling was at the U.S. District Court (New Mexico) level, but his research and logic was sound. As a result, several similar court rulings in other districts have followed suit. Put simply, he held that the mere act of carrying a firearm in a lawful manner constitutes neither RAS nor PC. Therefore, stops based solely on lawful carry are un-Constitutional.

    More here, including the full text of the case.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    I Didn't Mean to Suggest

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Agreed, and it's the latest in a fairly long trend of beating back the anti-2A weeds.

    In deference to apjonas, I would like to bring up St. John v. Alamogordo. Judge Black's 2009 ruling was at the U.S. District Court (New Mexico) level, but his research and logic was sound. As a result, several similar court rulings in other districts have followed suit. Put simply, he held that the mere act of carrying a firearm in a lawful manner constitutes neither RAS nor PC. Therefore, stops based solely on lawful carry are un-Constitutional.

    More here, including the full text of the case.
    that a lower level court decision could not form the basis for rulings by appellate courts. Just that such rulings, by themselves, are of limited significance.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    one district court decision in Texas (not circuit). To gain the benefit on this decision, you would have to file suit in your district and gain a similarly favorable ruling. Interesting decision but not very significant - yet. No FFL (even in N. Texas) is likely to conduct business differently based upon this case. If and when you have a CCA signing on to this decision, then you will have something worth writing home about. I didn't see anything about an injunction. ATF is free to conduct business as usual in the rest of the nation.
    Doesn't the word "enjoined" create an injunction? The defendants, Holder and Jones are "enjoined" from enforcing these statutes and CFR's is an injunction.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Humble
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by janus View Post
    Doesn't the word "enjoined" create an injunction? The defendants, Holder and Jones are "enjoined" from enforcing these statutes and CFR's is an injunction.
    In that district. Maybe.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-15-2016 at 06:05 AM. Reason: deleted superfluous reference/link

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by janus View Post
    Doesn't the word "enjoined" create an injunction? The defendants, Holder and Jones are "enjoined" from enforcing these statutes and CFR's is an injunction.
    Quote Originally Posted by sc-texas View Post
    In that district. Maybe.
    "Enjoined" is a transitive verb with a legal definition:
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Enjoin
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-15-2016 at 06:06 AM. Reason: deleted superfluous reference/link in quote
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Humble
    Posts
    15
    True. And a federal district judge is not to be trifled with. Unless you are a Clinton.

    But ffls aren't going to get in the middle of this one.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-16-2016 at 03:44 PM. Reason: Deleted redundent link

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Sure that this will cause many antis to have severe stomach distress - I just can't bear to watch ....
    Tums sales will go up? Not by much I would think....but it will get into California antis the worst I think.

    Finally they figured out how to insure lack of standing is not a bar to these types of cases. Not rocket science guys !

    Handguns? I'll take 32,000 please.

Posting Permissions

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