-
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.
-
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 Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban Struck Down
- Thread starter Jim675
- Start date
DeSchaine
Regular Member
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.
Now, the inevitable attempt by the weasel horde to get out of this one.
OC4me
Regular Member
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.
OC4me
Regular Member
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:
davidmcbeth
Banned
I don't see how the state has jurisdiction over other state's residents ... is this enforceable is my query ?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
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:
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.
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.
since9
Campaign Veteran
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)
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:
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?
This is
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.
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:
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.
since9
Campaign Veteran
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.
I Didn't Mean to Suggest
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.
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.
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 a moderator:
"Enjoined" is a transitive verb with a legal definition:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Enjoin
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
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.