- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 543
- Likes
- 165
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Interstate handgun ban ruling ...
- Thread starter Alchemist17
- Start date
Palladin
NES Member
[QUOTEThe Court further finds, in the alternative, the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is
unconstitutional when applied to the facts of this case. The essence of an as-applied challenge is the
claim that the manner in which a statute was applied to the plaintiff in a particular circumstance
violated the Constitution. See In re Cao, 619 F.3d 410, 434 (5th Cir. 2010); Khachaturian v. Fed.
Election Comm’n, 980 F.2d 330, 331 (5th Cir. 1992). Texas law allows the sale of handguns to
residents of other states, and the District of Columbia does not prohibit the importation of firearms
as long as they are registered. See D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a) (2014). Further, based on the
undisputed facts in this case, the Hansons are fully qualified under federal, District of Columbia, and
Texas law to purchase and possess handguns, and the Hansons each identified a handgun in Mance’s
inventory that is legal for them to possess and bring into the District of Columbia. As discussed
above, requiring that the Hansons pay additional costs and fees and wait until they return to the
District of Columbia to retrieve their firearms from Sykes amounts to a regime that is not narrowly
tailored to achieve the Government’s compelling interest.Accordingly, the federal interstate handgun
transfer ban is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs.][/QUOTE]
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
unconstitutional when applied to the facts of this case. The essence of an as-applied challenge is the
claim that the manner in which a statute was applied to the plaintiff in a particular circumstance
violated the Constitution. See In re Cao, 619 F.3d 410, 434 (5th Cir. 2010); Khachaturian v. Fed.
Election Comm’n, 980 F.2d 330, 331 (5th Cir. 1992). Texas law allows the sale of handguns to
residents of other states, and the District of Columbia does not prohibit the importation of firearms
as long as they are registered. See D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a) (2014). Further, based on the
undisputed facts in this case, the Hansons are fully qualified under federal, District of Columbia, and
Texas law to purchase and possess handguns, and the Hansons each identified a handgun in Mance’s
inventory that is legal for them to possess and bring into the District of Columbia. As discussed
above, requiring that the Hansons pay additional costs and fees and wait until they return to the
District of Columbia to retrieve their firearms from Sykes amounts to a regime that is not narrowly
tailored to achieve the Government’s compelling interest.Accordingly, the federal interstate handgun
transfer ban is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs.][/QUOTE]
Comm2a, please translate what this actually means for those who don't speak legal lingo.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 543
- Likes
- 165
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.
StevieP
NES Member
knoxy
NES Member
Am curious as to whether or not this is binding immediately.... Anyone else want to take a bus to the 5th circuit? ![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
-Mike
- - - Updated - - -
No, it'd only be binding within the 5th circuit, at least at this point.
-Mike
-Mike
- - - Updated - - -
Does this mean I can sell handguns to my peeps in MA?![[devil]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/015.gif "Devil [devil]")
No, it'd only be binding within the 5th circuit, at least at this point.
-Mike
Exactly. Good news in the short term, but whether it stands remains to be seen. Reading through the ruling, it is hard (for me) to see how they could have ruled differently, but then again I've thought that large parts of the GCA and NFA are unconstitutional for a long time.
I like how they brought up the fact that with the Brady Bill the justifications for the interstate handgun ban no longer exist. I am a little worried that they didn't address directly the commerce clause justifications for the GCA.
they turned the antis tactic on its head
antis used the 2.1 million rejections during background checks to argue for more background checks
here the courts found that 2.1 million rejections during background checks proves the interstate ban is unnecessary
that makes me giggle
antis used the 2.1 million rejections during background checks to argue for more background checks
here the courts found that 2.1 million rejections during background checks proves the interstate ban is unnecessary
that makes me giggle
knoxy
NES Member
Yes please, but no more Mass markup for![[slap]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/025.gif "Slap [slap]")
What?!!? You don't want my CZ75 for $900?!?
Garys
NES Member
Am curious as to whether or not this is binding immediately.... Anyone else want to take a bus to the 5th circuit?
-Mike
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.
If I were a MA dealer, I would start this argument today, as to dealers within this district, it has been ruled that I'm at a significant disadvantage.
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.
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.
You can do that already, but that's beside the point.
The real ballbuster with this is if I'm at a pawn shop in the middle of "Nowhere, Nevada" and I want to buy a handgun that's there for cheap money, I should be able to plonk cash down, fill out a form, pass the check, and leave the shop with it... right there. With no "you hafta send it through your state of residence" BS.
-Mike
ToddDubya
NES Member
You'd think the credit card companies would be backing this type of reform. Think of how many billions of dollars of impulse gun buys they've missed.
FIFY
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
Mike
If the ruling has immediately taken effect, it would be buyers from any part of the US going to anywhere in that court's jurisdiction.
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.
But it is very good progress.
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.
But it is very good progress.
KBCraig
NES Member
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.
Last edited:
Mass legislature will continue to be a pain in the neck, while SO and Riley's will make an absolute killing. And FLRB's records will be even more inaccurate because people will either lose them in the snow or tragic boating accidents en route home before they could EFA-10 them.
Last edited:
Similar threads
