Interstate handgun ban ruling ...

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.

ATF's regs actually say "possess or sell". Now, they don't really mean that in this context, but do you really see an BO admin AG not interpreting them exactly as written???

ETA: And to tie this back to my comment on discipline, some moron could go and file a suit against the feds mirroring what Alan did with the purpose of evading the list, get a hostile federal judge in NH or MA to say as much, CA1 will rubber stamp them, then we have that precedent on the books for use in other contexts.

If we have an issue with the list, we need to file a suit about the list. We have already started that with the suit against the AGs office. One step at a time.
 
Last edited:
The burden is on the dealers. See 18 USC 922 b 3: [/FONT][/COLOR]

No, see 18 USC 922(a)(3):

(a) It shall be unlawful -
(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport
into or receive in the State where he resides
(or if the person
is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it
maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise
obtained by such person outside that State,
except that this
paragraph
(A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires
a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other
than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or
receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to
purchase or possess such firearm in that State,
(B) shall not
apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in
conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section
, and
(C) shall
not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any
State prior to the effective date of this chapter;


And what does 18 USC 922(b)(3) say?
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or
deliver -
(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has
reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person
is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a
place of business in) the State in which the licensee's place of
business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not
apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a
resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's
place of business is located if the transferee meets in person
with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale,
delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of
sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer
or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual
knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both
States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a
firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting
purposes;

18 USC 922(b)(3) creates some exemptions for dealers, including transfer of a rifle or shotgun to a non-resident, if it's legal in their state of residence.

There are no exemptions for handguns, and 18 USC 922(a)(3) makes it a crime to transport or receive into one's state of residence any firearm not obtained legally, including under (b)(3).
 
Oh, and I forgot this tidbit:

This was an Alan Gottlieb production. While SAF and Gura have made some amazing wins in the federal courts, Gottlieb has gone off the reservation in favor of mandatory background checks, even for private sales. Look at the Washington State I-594 debacle for an example of where he argues for keeping the background check in place for all transfers.

This was the correct ruling, for all the wrong reasons.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...on-interstate-handgun-sales-unconstitutional/
 
No, see 18 USC 922(a)(3):




And what does 18 USC 922(b)(3) say?


18 USC 922(b)(3) creates some exemptions for dealers, including transfer of a rifle or shotgun to a non-resident, if it's legal in their state of residence.

There are no exemptions for handguns, and 18 USC 922(a)(3) makes it a crime to transport or receive into one's state of residence any firearm not obtained legally, including under (b)(3).

Right, but if this ruling stands under appeals, it will create an exemption from handguns by giving handguns the same status under 922(b)(3) as long arms (presumably).
 
Oh, and I forgot this tidbit:

This was an Alan Gottlieb production. While SAF and Gura have made some amazing wins in the federal courts, Gottlieb has gone off the reservation in favor of mandatory background checks, even for private sales. Look at the Washington State I-594 debacle for an example of where he argues for keeping the background check in place for all transfers.

This was the correct ruling, for all the wrong reasons.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...on-interstate-handgun-sales-unconstitutional/
Almost everyone who "supports the second amendment" has a but attached.

Support the second amendment but:

For hunting, not for self defense
For self defense at home, but not for carry outside the home
For carry outside the home, but only concealed
For concealed carry of handguns, but not for rifles.
Not for former felons
Not for machine guns
Not for bazookas
 
Almost everyone who "supports the second amendment" has a but attached.

Support the second amendment but:

For hunting, not for self defense
For self defense at home, but not for carry outside the home
For carry outside the home, but only concealed
For concealed carry of handguns, but not for rifles.
Not for former felons
Not for machine guns
Not for bazookas

I want a bazooka. [thinking]
 
It may take considerable effort to get dealers in the jurisdictions covered by the to make the sales. Dealers will be afraid of this being overturned; afraid of BATFE harassment; afraid that they will be penalized for relying on the ruling before the feds get a higher court to overturn it; etc. In the short term, it is likely to be a symbolic victory only.
 
Right, but if this ruling stands under appeals, it will create an exemption from handguns by giving handguns the same status under 922(b)(3) as long arms (presumably).

To be fair, what the summary judgement actually says is that prohibiting the sale of handguns to non-residents of a state is a violation of both the second and fifth amendment in all cases considered by the court. The judgment does not limit itself to a single subsection of case law, and if upheld in this form would likely result in multiple sections of GCA68 being invalid.
 
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.

I wouldn't be surprised if the CCRKBA backs another case in another district. Although this district ruling isn't strictly precedent, it should have some effect on other districts considerations.

In my mind, the question is whether they try to get this re-tried in another friendly district, to strengthen the precedent, or if they run this in an unfriendly district, like the 2nd and try for a split. Which would be a requirement for SCOTUS to even consider hearing it.
 
They already have cases in other circuits. The DC circuit has been grasping at straws trying to find a reason to rule against Gura in dearth and this is going to make it that much more difficult for them. They know how this needs to go, they just refuse to do it.
 
So there are already splits at the circuit level.

Have any of these been appealed and ruled on? i.e. do we have a split at the Appellate level?

Wouldn't a split at the Appellate level be required for SCOTUS to even consider anything like this?


Terraformer - thanks for fielding my dumb questions.
 
Since I posted a dupe in the Gun Laws forum earlier today, I'll just address the comments above with what I posted earlier today.

USDC in TX just ruled that interstate purchase of handguns should follow the same laws as for long guns and that there was no legitimate government purpose in requiring said purchases to take place only in the state of residence.

They expect it to be appealed and perhaps head to USSC eventually.

Some things to understand:

- This ruling if it holds will ONLY affect TX until/unless the USSC rules that it covers the entire US, or BATFE backs down and allows it via regulation.
- This will have ZERO impact on MA residents at this time and even if we win straight thru the USSC, it is likely that most FFLs will refuse to deal with us for fear that it is "illegal" to buy a non-listed (and non-AG compliant) handgun. Don't expect them to understand the nuance of what a MA Dealer is allowed to do and what a resident is allowed to buy . . . plus you can count on the MA AG to invoke the "all sales happen in MA and therefore 'you' must comply with what a MA 'purveyor' of handguns complies with"!

It's still a win for Free America however.


MA AG intimidation is a very powerful tool and the MA AGs we have and have had will not pass up any opportunity to screw us and anyone who is willing to deal with us.
 
Since I posted a dupe in the Gun Laws forum earlier today, I'll just address the comments above with what I posted earlier today.

USDC in TX just ruled that interstate purchase of handguns should follow the same laws as for long guns and that there was no legitimate government purpose in requiring said purchases to take place only in the state of residence.

They expect it to be appealed and perhaps head to USSC eventually.

Some things to understand:

- This ruling if it holds will ONLY affect TX until/unless the USSC rules that it covers the entire US, or BATFE backs down and allows it via regulation.
- This will have ZERO impact on MA residents at this time and even if we win straight thru the USSC, it is likely that most FFLs will refuse to deal with us for fear that it is "illegal" to buy a non-listed (and non-AG compliant) handgun. Don't expect them to understand the nuance of what a MA Dealer is allowed to do and what a resident is allowed to buy . . . plus you can count on the MA AG to invoke the "all sales happen in MA and therefore 'you' must comply with what a MA 'purveyor' of handguns complies with"!

It's still a win for Free America however.


MA AG intimidation is a very powerful tool and the MA AGs we have and have had will not pass up any opportunity to screw us and anyone who is willing to deal with us.

Still remains a mystery to me how one gun with prior sale in MA is somehow "safer" and legal for transfer in MA than the same model purchased from an out of state source. I emphasize the word "safer" because it was on that basis (consumer protection) that the AG ursurped the power of the state houses.
 
Right Len. But hopefully comm2A can then blast through the MA AG crap with a SCOTUS case as the ammo. May have to up the monthly donations to comm2A as we gain more and more traction.
 
Still remains a mystery to me how one gun with prior sale in MA is somehow "safer" and legal for transfer in MA than the same model purchased from an out of state source. I emphasize the word "safer" because it was on that basis (consumer protection) that the AG ursurped the power of the state houses.
Grandfathering, of the various sorts found in gun laws and regulations, exists only to deprive those who would oppose such law of a "deprivation of property" argument.

As to the recent decision - my prediction is that despite the decision, most TX FFLs will be scared that the law will be overruled, and will be afraid of annoying the BATFE, that they will act as if the decision was never made.

What I liked about the decision was "Strict scrutiny is appropriate, however, this policy also fails intermediate scrutiny".
 
Grandfathering, of the various sorts found in gun laws and regulations, exists only to deprive those who would oppose such law of a "deprivation of property" argument.

As to the recent decision - my prediction is that despite the decision, most TX FFLs will be scared that the law will be overruled, and will be afraid of annoying the BATFE, that they will act as if the decision was never made.

What I liked about the decision was "Strict scrutiny is appropriate, however, this policy also fails intermediate scrutiny".

I wouldnt be surprised if there are a couple "activist" FFLs.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
I wouldnt be surprised if there are a couple "activist" FFLs.

I think the only way an FFL down there is going to do this is if a court compelled BATFE into honoring the decision and issued a guidance memorandum for the district in question, otherwise the risk for them is too great. Problem is even if the FFL is legally in the right for the duration of the sales BATFE can still be dicks to them administratively.

-Mike
 
In order to overturn the bar is seems to be set quite high on this one (assuming the higher court obeys its own rules).

Showing that neither strict or intermidiate scrutiny apply and that NICS is not sufficient would take some serious twisting of logic.


Not certain what happened there with the double post (containing half a post)
 
Some things to understand:

- This ruling if it holds will ONLY affect TX until/unless the USSC rules that it covers the entire US, or BATFE backs down and allows it via regulation.
- This will have ZERO impact on MA residents at this time and even if we win straight thru the USSC, it is likely that most FFLs will refuse to deal with us for fear that it is "illegal" to buy a non-listed (and non-AG compliant) handgun. Don't expect them to understand the nuance of what a MA Dealer is allowed to do and what a resident is allowed to buy . . . plus you can count on the MA AG to invoke the "all sales happen in MA and therefore 'you' must comply with what a MA 'purveyor' of handguns complies with"!

It's still a win for Free America however.

MA AG intimidation is a very powerful tool and the MA AGs we have and have had will not pass up any opportunity to screw us and anyone who is willing to deal with us.

This is so true. I had a pawn shop / firearms dealer in NH refuse to sell me a pre-ban Glock mag because he didn't want anything to do with MA laws and was afraid of potentially getting sued and losing his business. Because of this he instituted a blanket policy of NO FIREARMS OR COMPONENT SALES to non-NH residents.

Also, if this is declared law nationwide, it just may open the door for a positive constitutional carry ruling. The a-holes in NY and NJ who currently don't abide by FOPA will be having temper tantrums.
 
I think the only way an FFL down there is going to do this is if a court compelled BATFE into honoring the decision and issued a guidance memorandum for the district in question, otherwise the risk for them is too great. Problem is even if the FFL is legally in the right for the duration of the sales BATFE can still be dicks to them administratively.

-Mike

BATFE and IRS and whoever else wants to jump on them
 
No direct effect at all. It will drive national policy, but legally speaking, it changes nothing for MA until SCOTUS or our circuit says otherwise.

This decision won't even drive national policy. They will hold on to this and fight it in every circuit. The residency requirement is the lynchpin of a lot of regs. Please note that someone who has no rights in their home state (say for suitability reasons...) but has rights in the next state over is prohibited from exercising that right in the next state over (or the other 49 for that matter). Lift the residency requirement and it forces adherence to a nationwide minimum standard.
 
No direct effect at all. It will drive national policy, but legally speaking, it changes nothing for MA until SCOTUS or our circuit says otherwise.

This decision won't even drive national policy. They will hold on to this and fight it in every circuit. The residency requirement is the lynchpin of a lot of regs. Please note that someone who has no rights in their home state (say for suitability reasons...) but has rights in the next state over is prohibited from exercising that right in the next state over (or the other 49 for that matter). Lift the residency requirement and it forces adherence to a nationwide minimum standard.


Thanks guys.
 
This decision won't even drive national policy. They will hold on to this and fight it in every circuit. The residency requirement is the lynchpin of a lot of regs. Please note that someone who has no rights in their home state (say for suitability reasons...) but has rights in the next state over is prohibited from exercising that right in the next state over (or the other 49 for that matter). Lift the residency requirement and it forces adherence to a nationwide minimum standard.

While we're on the topic, isn't there a similar suit in fed courts (or was there) involving some guy who was a US citizen who like lived on a boat or something, or didn't have any place of residency inside the united states, yet wanted to be able to buy a handgun so he could keep it in the US for use when he visited?

-Mike
 
Back
Top Bottom