Interstate handgun ban ruling ...

[xero2099]

Not even binding in the entire 5CA. It applies only in the district where this judge sits. It's a great first step, but it's just that. No doubt the DOJ will appeal to the 5CA and if they lose there, appeal for en banc rehearing. If that happens and they lose there, it goes to SCOTUS. If they uphold the district court decision, then it applies everywhere and bank accounts across MA, CA, IL, DC and other "roster" like states will be emptied.

indeed i have my eye on a few peieces now but dont want to pay the "MA Roster" tax price

 

[Jim85IROC]

So if this gets through SCOTUS, that means legally, I'd be able to go to a MA gun shop, legally buy a gun, and then immediately be arrested for possession of a firearm without an FID.

 

[browncoat]

So if this gets through SCOTUS, that means legally, I'd be able to go to a MA gun shop, legally buy a gun, and then immediately be arrested for possession of a firearm without an FID.

Nope. Guns sold to people by FFLs must be legal to possess in their place of residence. If you are an MA resident and you don't have an FID/LTC, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun anywhere in the US.

 

[drgrant]

The 5th Circuit is very likely to uphold, so I doubt they even appeal at all. If they keep it to North Texas, they limit their damage.

Worth noting: the ATF could still go after and prosecute the buyers who live in other districts; the ban hasn't been overturned for them.

Depends on how the law is worded, and also sequencing, IMHO. If the law places the liability on the FFL then this is a non issue.

-Mike

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

So if this gets through SCOTUS, that means legally, I'd be able to go to a MA gun shop, legally buy a gun, and then immediately be arrested for possession of a firearm without an FID.

It will be a minimum of three years before this case gets to SCOTUS if it gets there at all.

And no, that's a silly question. Dealers must still comply with state law, which in this case prohibits MA dealers from transferring a firearm to someone who is not properly licenses. The ruling only applies to the federal law which prohibited most direct to consumer interstate transfers. The ruling is also very clear in that dealers must still comply with the law of their state as well as of the state where the purchaser resides.

It will be a huge competitively disadvantage to Massachusetts dealers because they cannot transfer a firearm to someone who does not have a valid MA firearms license and they will potentially lose business to out-of-state dealers.

Those out-of-state dealers will still have to comply with the laws of the purchaser's state. Just as it's a violation of federal law to sell and assault weapon to a MA,CA, etc. resident, the decision seems to indicate that it would also be illegal to sell someone a handgun that they can't possess in their home state. In our case, this would probably only apply to what MA calls LCFDs. Would a non-MA FFL have to abide by the roster and the AG's regs? I think not because they apply specifically to dealers licensed by Massachusetts.

 

[crazymjb]

Nope. Guns sold to people by FFLs must be legal to possess in their place of residence. If you are an MA resident and you don't have an FID/LTC, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun anywhere in the US.

I think he is saying a non-res buys a gun from a shop in MA, and instantly is in violation of the law. Is it possible that as long as they transport it directly to somewhere they are allowed to have it, it's fine? How does MA deal with rifle purchases from OOSers? Just don't allow it as they have no LTC?

Mike

 

[browncoat]

Depends on how the law is worded, and also sequencing, IMHO. If the law places the liability on the FFL then this is a non issue.

-Mike

The 5th Circuit is very likely to uphold, so I doubt they even appeal at all. If they keep it to North Texas, they limit their damage.

Worth noting: the ATF could still go after and prosecute the buyers who live in other districts; the ban hasn't been overturned for them.

The burden is on the dealers. See 18 USC 922 b 3:

It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I think he is saying a non-res buys a gun from a shop in MA, and instantly is in violation of the law. Is it possible that as long as they transport it directly to somewhere they are allowed to have it, it's fine? How does MA deal with rifle purchases from OOSers? Just don't allow it as they have no LTC?

Mike

No. Even if the interstate transfer ban falls, MA FFLs will still be unable to transfer a firearm to someone without a MA license because that's what MA law requires.

 

[browncoat]

No. Even if the interstate transfer ban falls, MA FFLs will still be unable to transfer a firearm to someone without a MA license because that's what MA law requires.

This exposes the unconstitutional undermining that the GCA was designed to allow - it was specifically created to allow local gun control that the Federal government should​ be banning.

 

[szaino]

No. Even if the interstate transfer ban falls, MA FFLs will still be unable to transfer a firearm to someone without a MA license because that's what MA law requires.

But doesn't Mass law only apply to inter state business? Mass can't regulate intra state business.

 

[nhpoke]

But doesn't Mass law only apply to inter state business? Mass can't regulate intra state business.

Tell that to the people who won't ship ammo.
(In theory, I agree with you. In theory, theory is the same as practice. In practice, it isn't).

 

[Garys]

Those out-of-state dealers will still have to comply with the laws of the purchaser's state. Just as it's a violation of federal law to sell and assault weapon to a MA,CA, etc. resident, the decision seems to indicate that it would also be illegal to sell someone a handgun that they can't possess in their home state. In our case, this would probably only apply to what MA calls LCFDs. Would a non-MA FFL have to abide by the roster and the AG's regs? I think not because they apply specifically to dealers licensed by Massachusetts.

I'm not sure on this.

There already exists a federal statute that imposes criminal liability on FFLs
who sell illegal firearms in another state under 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and Defendants do not explain
why a state could not prosecute that out-of-state FFL if he violates state law as well. It appears that
Defendants rely on the fact that Congress believed that states would be unable to prosecute an out-ofstate
FFL who sold to one of their residents in violation of state law; thus, requiring the participation
of the in-state FFL would allow states to prosecute such illegal firearms sales. The Court agrees that
states indeed have an interest in prosecuting such crimes but fails to see how a state would be unable
to prosecute out-of-state FFLs that illegally sell guns to their citizens. While Congress’s findings
indicated that states could not prosecute rogue out-of state FFLs, nothing in the findings, and nothing
presented by Defendants here, supports such a conclusion. See Morrison, 526 U.S. at 614 (stating
that determining whether congressional findings are sufficient to sustain congressional action is a
matter for the judiciary).

The two bolded portions suggest to me that the MA AG could in fact prosecute an out of state FFL who sold a non MA compliant firearm to a MA resident. That's provided the AG could figure out that such a sale took place. It would seem that MA law requires a resident to fill out an FA10 on out of state purchases, at least that's my understanding. As of now, the FA10 doesn't require the registrant to state from whom he bought the gun. There's no reason that MA couldn't amend their forms to require that information and use that to go after out of state FFLs for selling non roster firearms to MA residents. The MA resident would not be at risk since the law applies to FFLs and not consumers. However, as with ammunition, the threat of prosecution would likely make out of state FFLs decide it's not worth the risk to sell to a MA resident.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into the quoted paragraph.

I'll likely be in the Northern District later this, but I don't know that I'll try to take advantage of this decision.

 

[Garys]

Assumes that the antis will let it out of the 5th cir. if they do not win there. Similar to what has happened before. they want to avoid goign to the SC and will try to avoid a split in the circuits.

The only case where the anti gunners pressured a state not to appeal to SCOTUS was Madigan. Peruta and the two related cases are still in play as 9CA hasn't decided whether or not to grant an en banc rehearing and the anti gun forces there are pushing for them to do just that. I wouldn't count on the DOJ, no matter who the AG is, to drop this case at the district court or even the circuit court level.

 

[drgrant]

The two bolded portions suggest to me that the MA AG could in fact prosecute an out of state FFL who sold a non MA compliant firearm to a MA resident. That's provided the AG could figure out that such a sale took place. It would seem that MA law requires a resident to fill out an FA10 on out of state purchases, at least that's my understanding. As of now, the FA10 doesn't require the registrant to state from whom he bought the gun. There's no reason that MA couldn't amend their forms to require that information and use that to go after out of state FFLs for selling non roster firearms to MA residents. The MA resident would not be at risk since the law applies to FFLs and not consumers. However, as with ammunition, the threat of prosecution would likely make out of state FFLs decide it's not worth the risk to sell to a MA resident.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into the quoted paragraph.

I'll likely be in the Northern District later this, but I don't know that I'll try to take advantage of this decision.

MA doesn't have the jurisdiction to prosecute someone for an act that occurs outside its borders.

As it stands right now BATFE doesn't care what remotes do WRT sending firearms into MA for transfer, long as its not an AWB controlled gun or something that isn't possession legal. Non compliant handguns are nearly always possession legal in MA.

The ammo issue is different because it involves a debate about whether or not something is sold in MA, and an argument over whether the buyer is getting the ammo FOB (free on board) etc as it leaves the shipper. With the case of someone walking into Texas and buying a handgun, there is ZERO dispute or debate about where the sale is taking place.

-Mike

 

[Garys]

That quote came from the decision. Apparently the judge thinks that a state can indeed prosecute an out of state FFL for a violation of MA law. Take it up with him.

MA doesn't have the jurisdiction to prosecute someone for an act that occurs outside its borders.

As it stands right now BATFE doesn't care what remotes do WRT sending firearms into MA for transfer, long as its not an AWB controlled gun or something that isn't possession legal. Non compliant handguns are nearly always possession legal in MA.

The ammo issue is different because it involves a debate about whether or not something is sold in MA, and an argument over whether the buyer is getting the ammo FOB (free on board) etc as it leaves the shipper. With the case of someone walking into Texas and buying a handgun, there is ZERO dispute or debate about where the sale is taking place.

-Mike

 

[browncoat]

That quote came from the decision. Apparently the judge thinks that a state can indeed prosecute an out of state FFL for a violation of MA law. Take it up with him.

The eops regs apply to ma licensed dealers, not FFL right?

 

[drgrant]

That quote came from the decision. Apparently the judge thinks that a state can indeed prosecute an out of state FFL for a violation of MA law. Take it up with him.

The way the law is worded in MA it only applies to handgun purveyors, the remote is not acting as a handgun purveyor within the commonwealth of Massachusetts. ETA: there is additional crap about the EOPS roster, but even if you read the requirements set out in C140 S123, it's readily apparent that a "licensee" is a dealer licensed in that chapter. The scope of this law isn't "everyone" it's for entities licensed as provided there in the law... Guess what, Remotes in Tinbuk 4 are not licensed under C140 S123... so the AG (or EOPS) can have fun trying to prosecute people with their own law that is very specific about who the liable parties can be.

That case is also a really bad example as it discusses/focuses around guns which are actually illegal to own. Non compliant handguns are not illegal to own. 922(b)(3) is completely invalid in the case of MA handgun compliance. (on the other hand, things like MA banned "assault weapons" and so on, are a wholly different ballgame).

If the scope of MA's handgun compliance law was wider this argument would make more sense, but it's not. It's very, very narrow. I'm not going to go in details in public about this but this has already been "very well tested" and if MA wanted to screw a remote to the wall, and it was legally viable, they would have done it already.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

The eops regs apply to ma licensed dealers, not FFL right?

They apply to any MA licensed dealer (who is typically always happens to be licensed as an FFL, by association) that sells or transfers more than 4 handguns in a calendar year.

-Mike

 

[92G]

So if this gets through SCOTUS, that means legally, I'd be able to go to a MA gun shop, legally buy a gun, and then immediately be arrested for possession of a firearm without an FID.

.....and reason #485 to avoid massachusetts

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

But doesn't Mass law only apply to inter state business? Mass can't regulate intra state business.

Mass law doesn't make a distinction. Mass law applies to dealers licensed by Massachusetts and doesn't contain any exceptions for out-of-state transactions. Any dealer in MA with a license to sell ammunition is effectively barred from operating a mail order or internet ammunition business because the law says that licensed individual can only transfer ammunition upon the in-person presentation of a valid MA LTC or FID.

The same set of laws and conditions would apply to firearms sales if the interstate transfer ban is actually overturned nationally.

Does this appear to violate the dormant commerce clause? I would think so. What do you propose be done about it?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I'm not sure on this.



The two bolded portions suggest to me that the MA AG could in fact prosecute an out of state FFL who sold a non MA compliant firearm to a MA resident. That's provided the AG could figure out that such a sale took place. It would seem that MA law requires a resident to fill out an FA10 on out of state purchases, at least that's my understanding. As of now, the FA10 doesn't require the registrant to state from whom he bought the gun. There's no reason that MA couldn't amend their forms to require that information and use that to go after out of state FFLs for selling non roster firearms to MA residents. The MA resident would not be at risk since the law applies to FFLs and not consumers. However, as with ammunition, the threat of prosecution would likely make out of state FFLs decide it's not worth the risk to sell to a MA resident.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into the quoted paragraph.

I'll likely be in the Northern District later this, but I don't know that I'll try to take advantage of this decision.

The folks in Maryland came to the same conclusion you did with respect to their roster. And I don't know how their roster works.

I'm looking at the specifics of how our law is written. The roster applies to dealers licensed by Massachusetts. Most states don't license dealers and their laws apply generally to dealers. In this case, yes, I would say you're correct.

I also suspect that the ATF enforces these kinds of things. For example if a Nevada FFL were to sell an AW to a California resident. But I'm not sure.

 

[mousegunfan]

So would this mean that as an MA resident I could go down to a gun shop in that judge's district the 5th Circuit and buy a shiny new Glock, or is it only for sellers AND buyers in that district?

Mike

Good luck, you'll be denied by the fed background check when state of residence does not match.

 

[cekim]

The folks in Maryland came to the same conclusion you did with respect to their roster. And I don't know how their roster works.

I'm looking at the specifics of how our law is written. The roster applies to dealers licensed by Massachusetts. Most states don't license dealers and their laws apply generally to dealers. In this case, yes, I would say you're correct.

I also suspect that the ATF enforces these kinds of things. For example if a Nevada FFL were to sell an AW to a California resident. But I'm not sure.

From ATF's "best practices and guidelines":

http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-15.pdf
page 5:
You may not sell or deliver a firearm to
any person in any State where the purchase or pos-
session would be in violation of a State law or
published ordinance.

That would be a no-no...

 

[Garys]

The eops regs apply to ma licensed dealers, not FFL right?

Good question. That might be a way around state enforcement.

 

[92G]

Good luck, you'll be denied by the fed background check when state of residence does not match.

but isn't this the whole point of the district court ruling? i.e., to require the state of residence to match the state of transaction is unconstitutional? perhaps i'm missing something.

 

[cekim]

The eops regs apply to ma licensed dealers, not FFL right?

EOPS apply to MA dealers. MA dealers need an FFL to get a MA license.

FFL's are expected by the ATF abide by the laws of the state of residence of the buyer for a direct transfer (which cannot include pistol anyway since that requires an FFL in your state of residence).

 

[cekim]

Good question. That might be a way around state enforcement.

The only way around would be if GCA68 were invalidated nationally (non-cert by SCOTUS, or decision by SCOTUS or all circuits in agreement) and any non-MA-FFL could sell pistols to out-of-state residents. In that case, MA would not be able to regulate out of state dealers. A MA resident could buy something in from an FFL in another state in that case.

I don't know what the case law looks like on going after "93A fraud" claims across state lines, but that what MA would have to do. They certainly have been doing this in various arenas in the past and I would expect them to continue their current course until the courts say otherwise.

 

[terraformer]

Look, the best way of looking at this is from the larger strategy. Yeah, someone can run out and sue the feds in CA1 to get a similar ruling to the OP, but there are lots of ways the states can address this. At it's core, the fundamental issue is some states believe they can regulate the types of arms one buys/possesses/etc and just being able to buy guns in another state is not the fix for that. In fact, pushing the issue in the OP via MA and CA1 may actually harm us in the long term.

 

[RicoShay]

This is potentially a big deal and third in a line of cases that challenges the ban on interstate handgun transfers. Dearth (currently in the DC Circuit with a hearing next month, and Lane (I'm not sure what's up with that) are the other two.

If taken to it's logical conclusion such that it applies nationwide, it would obviate both the Massachusetts handgun roster and the AG's 'safe' handgun regulations. Those would still be binding on Massachusetts dealers, but you would presumably be able to to legally purchase a handgun in another state as long as it was legal for you to possess it in your home state.

In the interim, I wouldn't make any handgun purchase related travel plans. I suspect that Texas dealers will be slow to test the waters on this and anyway, you can expect the DOJ to file and appeal and stay very quickly.

I dont know where you get this


maybe the out of state ffl would be required to follow ma law

maybe the ag consumer protection regs are out but the roster too?

 

[browncoat]

I dont know where you get this


maybe the out of state ffl would be required to follow ma law

maybe the ag consumer protection regs are out but the roster too?

Not true. Someone in another state is only obligated to follow the laws in their state and Federal law. Federal law only prohibits the sale of firearms that would be illegal to possess in the state of residence. MA handgun regs (aside from AWB) only address transfer via dealer, not possession. Hence there is no MA law against possession, nothing for an out of state dealer to worry about. All of this is in the thread previously I think.