Interstate handgun ban ruling ...

[Knuckle Dragger]

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

You're probably thinking of Stephen Dearth. That case is being re-briefed and re-argued in the DC circuit court of appeals next month.

Lane v. Holder also challenged the interstate ban.

 

[terraformer]

You're probably thinking of Stephen Dearth. That case is being re-briefed and re-argued in the DC circuit court of appeals next month.

Lane v. Holder also challenged the interstate ban.

Yeah, and the rebriefed and re-heard is a good indicator the circuit panel really wants to find something to rule against him with. They have raised all sorts of stupid legal theories that even the USAGs office wouldn't put their name on.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Defendants have already moved to stay the ruling pending an appeal.

Motion to Stay: Denied.

 

[Cmaro21]

Motion to Stay: Denied.

That is great news. This is from your link “We’re delighted that Judge O’Connor is not going to simply allow the government to stall this ruling,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “This case could have significant ramifications nationwide, and allowing a two-month stay while the government essentially claims it will be thinking about whether to appeal obviously was not warranted.”

 

[spooler41]

Just my opinion, the intrastate firearms law covers both rifles and handguns, but treats them differently. Any one from anywhere may purchase a rifle or shot gun in any state without recourse but one is required to purchase a handgun in
ones own state of residence. Now as I see this court decision it is now treating handgun sales the same as long gun sales.
This may seem a simple way of explaining things or not!

............................ Jack

 

[terraformer]

That's about right.

 

[fishgutzy]

Does this mean I can by a pistol in NC to give as a gift to a family member in MA (so long as I swap 17 round mags for 10)?
No effing 10# trigger?

 

[terraformer]

It means nothing right now.

 

[dcmdon]

It means nothing right now.

Well, at least it means nothing outside the district where this decision came from.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It means nothing right now.

Yup. Despite the lack of a stay, the NSSF is advising dealers to refuse to do any interstate transfers based on this ruling.

 

[dcmdon]

Yup. Despite the lack of a stay, the NSSF is advising dealers to refuse to do any interstate transfers based on this ruling.

Even in the texas district where the decision came from? If so, thats absurd. Is it because it would need to be legal at both ends of the transaction and the receiving end would most likely not be in teh same district?

 

[deezwho]

cheap glocks coming soon!

 

[KBCraig]

Even in the texas district where the decision came from? If so, thats absurd. Is it because it would need to be legal at both ends of the transaction and the receiving end would most likely not be in teh same district?

Yes.

Dealers can only legally transfer if it's legal on both ends.

 

[Cero]

I'm filled with glee and then disheartened when I read things like this case. There is the aspect that as a Ma resident I will have access to more choices of firearms and better prices but then I remember that this will take years to be settled (if it becomes a nationwide law) and even then Ma will still try to muck it up somehow. Is Ma going to be this lonely island of incomprehensible laws and BS regs while the rest of the country becomes free states?

 

[bigblue]

Don't worry, CA, CT & NY will be just as FUBAR'd: There will always be company for your misery.

 

[Hoover]

Gov requested a 60 day stay on the judges order which was DENIED this week in Mance v. Holder.

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2015/03/mance-v-holder-government-requested.html

You don't say.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...n-ban-ruling?p=4375409&viewfull=1#post4375409

 

[mikeyp]

I'm filled with glee and then disheartened when I read things like this case. There is the aspect that as a Ma resident I will have access to more choices of firearms and better prices but then I remember that this will take years to be settled (if it becomes a nationwide law) and even then Ma will still try to muck it up somehow. Is Ma going to be this lonely island of incomprehensible laws and BS regs while the rest of the country becomes free states?

Someone else can post more details, but it's come up on here a bunch of times that the Mass SJC doesn't abide by case laws set in the SCOTUS.

 

[surfcc]

After reading, the court basically states that the federal ban on interstate handgun sales is not constitutional either on its face or as applied, is unconstitutional under both second amendment grounds for both intermediate and strict scrutiny, and under 5th amendment due process grounds, and prohibits the gov't from enforcing the ban. So basically the gov't got spanked, but of course we'll need to wait for the inevitable appeal.

Hoping this would nullify magazine capacity laws (MA 10rds) and make such mag bans unconstitutional. I won't hold my breath.....just wishful thinking.

 

[Hoover]

This is only a fed district court ruling, it has a ways to go yet. The DOJ will appeal to the 5th circuit, etc.

 

[nstassel]

My impression is that this is unlikely to affect the situation in Mass. The Supreme Court has deferred to states on legislating reasonable restrictions on what its citizens possess. I think the ban on interstate purchases handguns may end which is good but the large cap ban won't be affected.

 

[exo]

Just my opinion, the intrastate firearms law covers both rifles and handguns, but treats them differently. Any one from anywhere may purchase a rifle or shot gun in any state without recourse but one is required to purchase a handgun in
ones own state of residence. Now as I see this court decision it is now treating handgun sales the same as long gun sales.
This may seem a simple way of explaining things or not!

............................ Jack

Inter, not intra. Inter == between, intra == within

 

[M1911]

Hoping this would nullify magazine capacity laws (MA 10rds) and make such mag bans unconstitutional. I won't hold my breath.....just wishful thinking.

Nope. Too entirely different things. The AWB in MA makes it illegal for you to possess certain things - including post-ban standard capacity magazines.

The GCA of 1968 made it illegal for you to buy a handgun out of state (unless it is transferred through a dealer in your state of residence).

If this lawsuit succeeds, we will be able to go to a dealer in any state, buy a handgun, and take possession. But if we get a standard capacity magazine with it and transport that mag back to MA, we will be committing a felony.

One legal step at a time.

 

[KBCraig]

The GCA of 1968 made it illegal for you to buy a handgun out of state (unless it is transferred through a dealer in your state of residence).

M1911, I apologize for picking your post to jump in, but you mentioned the common misunderstanding of the law, and I wanted to point out a subtle but important difference.

Short version: GCA actually makes it illegal to sell or receive in interstate commerce any firearm other than a rifle or shotgun.

Long version: This means that it's not just handgun sales that are banned outside one's state of residence, but also "other firearms", such as uncompleted lowers, pistol grip-only shotguns, etc. That's because the interstate exception is for a "rifle or shotgun", which the law defines as a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder.

This also applies to sales, even in-state sales, to anyone under 21, for the same reason: it's illegal for a dealer to transfer any firearm "other than a rifle or shotgun" to anyone under 21.

An 18 year old can buy a shotgun (from a dealer) with a shoulder stock attached, even if there's a separate pistol grip included in the kit. An 18 year old can't buy the same firearm if the pistol grip is attached, even if there's a separate shoulder stock included, because it's not a "shotgun"... it's an "other firearm".

And "other firearm" is not the same as "Any Other Weapon", which is an NFA item.

As always, don't expect it to make sense: it's the ATF.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Talking about this case with a coworker today - rather revive a dead thread than start a new one.

What ever happened to this? Google isn't helping.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

The latest from Alan Gura:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-663/72489/20181119123335039_3-petition.pdf

III. The Lower Court Seriously Erred In Upholding
The Abolition Of A National Retail
Handgun Market.
Regardless of the methodology employed, this
should not have been a difficult case. If, as Judge
Elrod argued, the prohibition of interstate handgun
sales should be evaluated on the basis of text and history,
the case is easy enough: Not one of the seventeen
judges who passed on the matter could explain how
prohibiting all interstate handgun sales reflects a traditional
understanding of the right to arms. Writing for
the panel plurality, Judge Owen simply assumed that
the challenged scheme lacks historical pedigree. Writing
for herself, Judge Owen joined the district court in
demolishing the claim that such a restriction might be
historically rooted. The government cited an impressive
array of regulations in support of its historical argument,
but they all suffered from two flaws: none of
them predated the 20th century—and none of them
had any connection to banning interstate handgun
sales.

As Judge Ho and the district court explained, the
interstate handgun sales ban cannot survive any form
of heightened scrutiny. The government simply lacks
any anti-circumvention interest when it comes to jurisdictions,
including the District of Columbia, that authorize
interstate sales—especially where the sales are
police-approved. Considering the millions of Americans
who live under such legal regimes, abolishing the
entire national retail market to prevent local-law circumvention
cannot be narrowly, closely, or even remotely
tailored to the perceived harm. The prohibition
makes no sense as applied to Mance and the Hansons,
whose transactions are perfectly legal under their respective
state and local laws, especially considering the
severe burdens that the interstate sales ban imposes
on District residents.

The panel’s two-and-a-half-year struggle to issue
its final, fractured opinion was not worth the wait. The
opinion rests on the incredible assertion that FFLs
cannot be expected to comply with the handgun laws
of more than one state. “FFLs are not engaged in the
practice of law, and we do not expect even an attorney
in one state to master the laws of 49 other states in a
particular area.” App. 16a-17a. But attorneys and
other professionals are allowed to practice in more
than one state. “[C]ourts have generally rejected the
notion that citizens are incapable of learning the laws
of other states—or that such inability would justify
otherwise unconstitutional laws.” App. 135a (citations
omitted).

 

[Waher]

press release:
CCRKBA SEEKS SCOTUS REVIEW OF MANCE INTERSTATE HANDGUN SALES CASE | Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

CCRKBA SEEKS SCOTUS REVIEW OF MANCE INTERSTATE HANDGUN SALES CASE
Monday, November 26th, 2018
BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review of its case challenging the long-standing ban on interstate handgun sales to law-abiding citizens from other states.

The case, known as Mance v. Whitaker, comes out of the Fifth Circuit and involves a Texas firearms retailer and two would-be customers who reside in Washington, D.C. A federal district court earlier ruled that the interstate handgun transfer ban is facially unconstitutional, which was reversed by a Fifth Circuit panel. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc by a fractured vote of 8-7. Plaintiffs in the case include CCRKBA, Andrew and Tracy Hanson of Washington, D.C. and Texas firearms retailer Fredric Mance. They are represented by attorney Alan Gura.

“The ban on interstate handgun sales was adopted decades ago,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “prior to the advent of the National Instant Check System that is now in place. The Hansons have essentially been denied the ability to legally purchase a handgun from a licensed retailer because of this prohibition.

“But our case goes to the heart of what appears to be a reluctance in the lower courts to enforce the Second Amendment even now, more than ten years after the landmark Heller ruling and eight years after the McDonald ruling,” he continued. “This continuing problem is mentioned in our petition to the high court.

“After all,” Gottlieb observed, “if a citizen is law-abiding in his home state, he or she is going to be law-abiding in a different state where they might find a firearm they want to buy, but the interstate sales ban prevents that. Citizens can purchase all sorts of other goods across state lines, but why not the one tool that is specifically mentioned and protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment? That simply defies logic and common sense.”

Funding support for this lawsuit is provided by the Second Amendment Foundation, which is CCRKBA’s sister organization and specializes in education and litigation.

“This case has been in the system for quite some time,” Gottlieb noted. “We’re hopeful that the Supreme Court, with its new makeup, will grant our request for review.”

 

[Radtekk]



 

[MuzzleDiscipline]

Don't get your hopes up too soon. The Fed Law keeps interstate sales of long arms limited to what is legal in your home state. Unless that is somehow reversed the same prohibition could easily and therefore likely would be applied to handgun sales.

 

[RandomBS]

Don't get your hopes up too soon. The Fed Law keeps interstate sales of long arms limited to what is legal in your home state. Unless that is somehow reversed the same prohibition could easily and therefore likely would be applied to handgun sales.

Off list handguns are not illegal to own

 

[exo]

Off list handguns are not illegal to own

+1. The EOPS roster controls what a MA dealer can sell/transfer to you, same goes for the AG regs.