SAF CHALLENGES BAN ON INTERSTATE HANDGUN SALES

Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,975
Likes
2,820
Feedback: 32 / 0 / 0
Leaving this one right here... rolleye-smiley-004.gif

SAF CHALLENGES BAN ON INTERSTATE HANDGUN SALES
by Second Amendment Foundation on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 4:45pm
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Virginia challenging the constitutionality of federal and Virginia provisions barring handgun sales to non-residents.

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Michelle Lane, a District of Columbia resident who cannot legally purchase handguns because there are no retail firearms dealers inside the District. The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller ruling struck down the District’s handgun ban, confirming that individuals have a constitutional right to possess handguns.

SAF and Lane are represented by attorney Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, who won both the Heller ruling and last year’s Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Named as defendants are Attorney General Eric Holder and W. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of the Virginia State Police.

“This is an important issue in the era of the national instant background check,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The NICS check should allow law-abiding citizens like Miss Lane to exercise their Second Amendment rights regardless their place of residence.”

“Americans don’t check their constitutional rights at the state line,” said Gura. “And since Michelle Lane is legally entitled to possess firearms, forcing her to seek a non-existing D.C. dealer to buy a handgun is pointless when perfectly legitimate options exist minutes across the Potomac River.”

“The Supreme Court has ruled that District residents have an individual right, protected by the Constitution, to have a handgun in their home,” Gottlieb noted. “The high court has also ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states. Existing state and federal statutes violate both the spirit and letter of recent court rulings and the Constitution, and our lawsuit seeks to remedy that situation.”

ETA: Just for the background, the ONLY FFL in DC had to shut it's doors last month when he lost his lease. DC has onerous regs on the books as to where an FFL can operate and lets just say this FFL will take months to have all the rainbows line up for him to find another business lease to operate from. With no FFL, there is no way for someone to buy a gun.
 
Last edited:
Currently, does an FFL selling a long arm have any duty to determine whether a resident from another state is legally allowed to own that long arm beyond not being a federally prohibited person? Forinstance, if a person from MA with no LTC goes to NH to buy an AR, does the NH FFL have any duty to do anything beyond a federal background check before selling the AR?
 
Currently, does an FFL selling a long arm have any duty to determine whether a resident from another state is legally allowed to own that long arm beyond not being a federally prohibited person? Forinstance, if a person from MA with no LTC goes to NH to buy an AR, does the NH FFL have any duty to do anything beyond a federal background check before selling the AR?

Yes, very much so. They need to check to make sure someone has a LTC if they are buying an AR.
 
Yes, very much so. They need to check to make sure someone has a LTC if they are buying an AR.

Thanks. I thought that was the case but I wasn't completely sure. I was hoping disruption to MA licensing schemes, but disruption to our handgun compliance laws would be great too.
 
Yes, there is a piece of US code that mandates "must be legal in state of residence" BS. That said, it's not very evenly applied/enforced. One of these days hopefully it will be
destroyed. (IMHO the feds should not have the right to enforce a state's laws against a dealer when the dealer is not physically within the boundaries of that state.

This is why most remotes will not sell you a post-ban AR, yet it's perfectly legal for me to build a post-ban out of state and keep it out of state.

-Mike
 
I see nothing to lose on this one. If they lose we're at status qup with minimal effect on us. If we win, well, we win and that's good for everyone who lives near a state line. Won't change anything about Mass. and it's ridiculous regs, but it will at least save me some money on FFL transfer fees.
 
I see nothing to lose on this one. If they lose we're at status qup with minimal effect on us. If we win, well, we win and that's good for everyone who lives near a state line. Won't change anything about Mass. and it's ridiculous regs, but it will at least save me some money on FFL transfer fees.

I think it would change a lot in MA. The MA consumer protection regulations are about what a MA dealer can sell, not what a MA gun owner can buy or own. So we could head up to NH and buy Springfields and HKs and Gen 4 Glocks, etc.
 
I think it would change a lot in MA. The MA consumer protection regulations are about what a MA dealer can sell, not what a MA gun owner can buy or own. So we could head up to NH and buy Springfields and HKs and Gen 4 Glocks, etc.

Exactly, maybe we could by post-MA-ban "high capacity" mags too?
 
I see nothing to lose on this one. If they lose we're at status qup with minimal effect on us. If we win, well, we win and that's good for everyone who lives near a state line. Won't change anything about Mass. and it's ridiculous regs, but it will at least save me some money on FFL transfer fees.

As M1911 said, how would this not change the way handguns are purchased in MA? Sure, Ma dealers would have to abide by the "consumer protection" BS, but an out of state dealer could sell me a new glock provided it has 10 round mags because it's legal for me to own and to be sold in my state of residence. No???
 
Exactly, maybe we could by post-MA-ban "high capacity" mags too?

I don't think so because it's a different law. You can already buy magazines interstate, but you can't possess them in MA if they are high capacity and made after 1994. So, if I went to Kittery Trading post and found some nice 12 round magazines for a M&P, I still couldn't buy them and bring them into MA. Same with rifle magazines for that matter. I can go to another state and buy all the nice new 30 round AR15 magazines I want. I just can't bring them into this state without committing a felony.
 
As M1911 said, how would this not change the way handguns are purchased in MA? Sure, Ma dealers would have to abide by the "consumer protection" BS, but an out of state dealer could sell me a new glock provided it has 10 round mags because it's legal for me to own and to be sold in my state of residence. No???

Yeah, we'd just have to get California models -- they have the same retarded mag ban.
 
I don't think so because it's a different law. You can already buy magazines interstate, but you can't possess them in MA if they are high capacity and made after 1994. So, if I went to Kittery Trading post and found some nice 12 round magazines for a M&P, I still couldn't buy them and bring them into MA. Same with rifle magazines for that matter. I can go to another state and buy all the nice new 30 round AR15 magazines I want. I just can't bring them into this state without committing a felony.

Yeah, I realized that right after I posted it....
 
I think it would change a lot in MA. The MA consumer protection regulations are about what a MA dealer can sell, not what a MA gun owner can buy or own. So we could head up to NH and buy Springfields and HKs and Gen 4 Glocks, etc.

The whining and hand ringing from Martha and company would be absolutely delicious.
 
I think it would change a lot in MA. The MA consumer protection regulations are about what a MA dealer can sell, not what a MA gun owner can buy or own. So we could head up to NH and buy Springfields and HKs and Gen 4 Glocks, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised that, if this gets overturned, MA would pass a new law under the guise of keeping guns off the streets (for the children of course) that states that we cannot own handguns that we purchased out of state.
 
I think it would change a lot in MA. The MA consumer protection regulations are about what a MA dealer can sell, not what a MA gun owner can buy or own. So we could head up to NH and buy Springfields and HKs and Gen 4 Glocks, etc.

Not sure how that would work. I can easily see Mass. passing laws making import of non-approved weapons illegal and it would probably stick.
 
Leaving this one right here... View attachment 17836



ETA: Just for the background, the ONLY FFL in DC had to shut it's doors last month when he lost his lease. DC has onerous regs on the books as to where an FFL can operate and lets just say this FFL will take months to have all the rainbows line up for him to find another business lease to operate from. With no FFL, there is no way for someone to buy a gun.

This one's is gonna be good....
 
SAF is the only organization that I have no problem giving money to. I'll pass on all the others.

Agreed.

They seem to squarely have their head out of their you know what and are actually DOING things... useful things, and doing them NOW.

They will be getting a check from me shortly, it's about time,
 
I'm a proud life member of GOAL but all of my extra donations these days go to SAF and Comm2A. GOAL does great work, but I think SAF and Comm2A are the best bang for the buck right now.
 
Not sure how that would work. I can easily see Mass. passing laws making import of non-approved weapons illegal and it would probably stick.

Good, let them try to pass that. Bring it on, bitches. Part of the reason the existing regs are "dealer only" is because it was 100 times cheaper to implement and they didn't have to deal with the legally sticky issues of "compensation for property" and the like. It would also probably motivate the dealers into going into full legal attack mode, as it would upgrade the stakes on the table considerably. It would eventually fail in court, whether via the 2nd amendment or otherwise.

-Mike
 
Good, let them try to pass that. Bring it on, bitches. Part of the reason the existing regs are "dealer only" is because it was 100 times cheaper to implement and they didn't have to deal with the legally sticky issues of "compensation for property" and the like. It would also probably motivate the dealers into going into full legal attack mode, as it would upgrade the stakes on the table considerably. It would eventually fail in court, whether via the 2nd amendment or otherwise.
I think that if SAF is able to get the interstate handgun sales ban overturned, then the MA dealers might also go into full legal attack mode -- if they don't do something, much of their business will flee across state lines overnight. Why buy a used Gen 2 Glock when you could buy a new Gen 4 Glock for the same price 50 miles away?

However, that's mostly my pipe dream. If the case does make it to SCOTUS, they will likely either draft a very narrow decision or one that is so undefined that it will take another 10 years of litigation to straighten out.
 
I'll be finding some money for the SAF in the very near future; this is good news. Unfortunately it may end up with a verdict that only affects DC and not interstate transfers.
 
Bump. Plaintiff's filed their motion for a Preliminary Injunction on Monday. The hearing is set for July 15th. Links to the other filings can be found here.

Not sure how that would work. I can easily see Mass. passing laws making import of non-approved weapons illegal and it would probably stick.
Don't be too quick to come to that conclusion. Given that the AG does not have a list per se, it would be very difficult for them to enforce their regulations against out-of-state FFLs let alone legislate the enforcement of consumer protection regulations back onto the consumer.

The EOPSS list is entirely different, of course. Still it would be very difficult for Mass to essentially outlaw the possession of gun in common use just because they hadn't been approved by the state.

This case makes me happy.
 
Seeing as i cannot make it to USPSA in new bedford on sunday.... i'll be donating my entrance fee and some of my ammo costs to SAF and COM2A
and it will be glorious

These organizations make me proud!
 
Back
Top Bottom