Interstate handgun ban ruling ...

Off list handguns are not illegal to own

Go buy one from an FFL. You presently can't go to NH and purchase a Modern Sporting Rifle which isn't illegal to own either. There are no magic fixes, quick cures, and no simple court relief.

Heller and McDonald have been settled by the SCOTUS for a long time. Someone should communicate that to Ms. Healy and the Ma. legislature.

I believe the courts will eventually give us relief but that is a long time off. It could take a generation or more. That won't end the fight. The antis will begin promoting an amendment to the second amendment.

Where is the relief Trump campaigned on? Even when Com2a prevailed with Caetano it wasn't enough. The opposition isn't just going to get discouraged and quit to go home and sulk.

In 1959 when I got my first handgun training I was taught the importance of the second amendment, the need for vigilance and political activity, registration means confiscation, and evil only needs good people to do nothing.
 
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.

MA's compliance BS would be meaningless, the guns are not illegal to own here, outside of stuff blocked by the AWB. The act of the transfer is the regulated
thing, not ownership or possession.

Hell it's meaningless now, to anyone except dealers operating in MA.

The more important thing is it would get rid of the stupid federal blockade on that sort of thing. You could be remote somewhere (not in state of residence) and a friend could sell you a handgun while you were
away, etc. Or if you're in a pawn shop in tinbuck 4 as long as no state law is violated. obviously worthless in commie states but in 40 something states people could ACT NORMALLY, lol.

I also think that stupid federal "must be legal in both states" thing is a bunch of horseshit too, nobody ever gets prosecuted for that, because just in reading it it reeks of feces, state of residence should be wholly irrelevant
WRT exercising a right. Not to mention its just f***ed in the head- I can legally build a 60 oz "armbrace AR-15 pistol" thing with a flash suppressor on it the whole nine yards, and as long as it stays in someplace like NH ME, etc, it's 100% legal to own.

I am cautiously optimistic given that Kennedy is gone (and he f***ed up Abramski, IIRC). Abramski wasn't the same issue but it is VERY close to this one WRT the generalized absurdities contained within
federal gun law. Most gun laws are dumb but things like "you can't buy a handgun outside of your state of residence" and "you as a non prohibited person cannot pay a non prohibited person friend to buy a gun on your
behalf" those kinds of things are just mind numbing f***ing, make you want to blow your brains out, insanity.

-Mike
 
I am cautiously optimistic given that Kennedy is gone (and he f***ed up Abramski, IIRC). Abramski wasn't the same issue but it is VERY close to this one WRT the generalized absurdities contained within
federal gun law. Most gun laws are dumb but things like "you can't buy a handgun outside of your state of residence" and "you as a non prohibited person cannot pay a non prohibited person friend to buy a gun on your
behalf" those kinds of things are just mind numbing f***ing, make you want to blow your brains out, insanity.

-Mike

This

No argument about how stupid, illogical, and frustrating all this remains but it still remains without regard to how it should be or what would make sense. It will disappear only when good thinking reasonable people address it in much larger numbers than presently seem motivated.
 
This

No argument about how stupid, illogical, and frustrating all this remains but it still remains without regard to how it should be or what would make sense. It will disappear only when good thinking reasonable people address it in much larger numbers than presently seem motivated.

I agree. While the supreme court looks good for us (and I applaud the work Comm2a and others do every day, and donate to them as well) it's not going to sort everything out. The sad thing is currently we probably have like 100 million gun owners in this country (it used to be 80, but I bet theres 20M more now, if not more) and the sad thing is most of them don't give a shit. Maybe 20% do? I don't know the numbers, but it's not enough. They take their rights for granted until its too late. And the insidious thing is shitberg et al are doing the end around attack" and while we've punched that donkey in the face a few times every once in awhile he succeeds. The stuff that happened in VT is very disturbing. It tells me that we need stronger state level RKBA organizations, and also that orgs like the NRA don't do enough to promote those organizations. Every non garbage state should have an org like Comm2A or something like VCDL (virginia citizens defense league) and sadly that is often not the case.

-Mike
 
Am I that far out of date with the laws? I've bought long guns out of state.
You are not out of date. You can still buy long guns out of state provided that you could legally buy it in your home state.

The issue is that FFLs may only sell longs to an out of state resident that are legal for that person to buy in their home state. It has been this way for a very long time.
 
You are not out of date. You can still buy long guns out of state provided that you could legally buy it in your home state.

The issue is that FFLs may only sell longs to an out of state resident that are legal for that person to buy in their home state. It has been this way for a very long time.
This needs an explanation because as written literally it is not correct.

What Rob means is that the gun must be legal for you to purchase from a MA FFL in order for the NON-MA FFL to be legal to sell it to you in that other state. ARs, AKs, and Glocks are the stand-out examples here. You can legally buy from a MA Resident with LTC, but MA FFLs are prohibited from selling them to you (pre-ban, 9/13/1994 are exceptions).
 
This needs an explanation because as written literally it is not correct.

What Rob means is that the gun must be legal for you to purchase from a MA FFL in order for the NON-MA FFL to be legal to sell it to you in that other state. ARs, AKs, and Glocks are the stand-out examples here. You can legally buy from a MA Resident with LTC, but MA FFLs are prohibited from selling them to you (pre-ban, 9/13/1994 are exceptions).

Citation? I was under the impression from my lawyer it was "legal to own" not "legal to sell".
 
I am cautiously optimistic given that Kennedy is gone...
-Mike

Unfortunately it's starting to look like the fix is in and Roberts is the new Kennedy. :( He's even reminding me of David Souter who was the biggest mistake John Sununu Sr. ever made.

We'll have to see what the New Year brings with RBG and if Trump gets another SCOTUS pick with the larger Senate majority. Another solid conservative would hopefully negate Roberts as the "swing" vote.
 
[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.]

[cheers][/QUOTE]
Should be: As applied to all citizens of the United States
 
Supreme Court Should Clarify Second Amendment Test
Supreme Court Should Clarify Second Amendment Test
Challenge to ban on interstate handgun sales would be a good vehicle.

Amicus brief: The amicus brief was written by Colorado attorney Joseph Greenlee and me. Amici are ten law professors who teach and write on the Second Amendment. Most of them have been cited by the Supreme Court, and they are oft-cited by lower courts as well. The professors are: VC's Randy Barnett (Georgetown), Royce Barondes (Missouri), Robert Cottrol (George Washington), Nicholas Johnson (Fordham),
Nelson Lund (George Mason), Joyce Malcolm (George Mason), George Mocsary (Southern Illinois), Joseph Olson (Mitchell Hamline), Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee), and Gregory Wallace (Campbell). Organizational amici are the Independence Institute, where I work, and the Millennial Policy Center, a think tank where Greenlee is a Fellow.

The brief addresses a problem that has been discussed in a number of previous cert. petitions: many lower courts have been defying Heller. The amicus brief addresses the problem with a broad and systematic review of doctrinal problems and conflicts in the lower courts. Here is the Summary of Argument:

Over a decade after this Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, lower courts are struggling to interpret and apply it.

Lower courts disagree over what test to apply to Second Amendment challenges. Although nearly every federal circuit court has adopted the Two-Part Test, many judges—in the Fifth Circuit and elsewhere—believe the Text, History, and Tradition Test is more appropriate. As they point out, the Text, History, and Tradition Test is the one used in Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

The Two-Part Test is an interest-balancing test; such a test was expressly rejected in Heller and McDonald. It meshes poorly with Heller's list of presumptively lawful gun laws and has created much confusion.

Some major lower court cases have used the Two-part Test to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right. They defy Heller by using a rational basis test for laws against law-abiding firearms owners and gun stores. They allow the government to prevail on thin or conclusory evidence. They apply a feeble version of heightened scrutiny that does not consider less burdensome alternatives. Each of these problems is manifest in the opinions below in this case.

Assorted lower courts expressly hew to the narrowest potential interpretation of the Second Amendment, pending further precedent from this Court. Development of Second Amendment jurisprudence is abrogated without additional guidance by this Court.

This Court should grant certiorari to state the appropriate test and to clarify issues within that test.
 
Unfortunately it's starting to look like the fix is in and Roberts is the new Kennedy. :( He's even reminding me of David Souter who was the biggest mistake John Sununu Sr. ever made.

We'll have to see what the New Year brings with RBG and if Trump gets another SCOTUS pick with the larger Senate majority. Another solid conservative would hopefully negate Roberts as the "swing" vote.
You don't think the left lost or destroyed whatever they held over his head for the ACA vote do you? Neither do I.
 
Go buy one from an FFL. You presently can't go to NH and purchase a Modern Sporting Rifle which isn't illegal to own either. There are no magic fixes, quick cures, and no simple court relief.

Heller and McDonald have been settled by the SCOTUS for a long time. Someone should communicate that to Ms. Healy and the Ma. legislature.

I believe the courts will eventually give us relief but that is a long time off. It could take a generation or more. That won't end the fight. The antis will begin promoting an amendment to the second amendment.

Where is the relief Trump campaigned on? Even when Com2a prevailed with Caetano it wasn't enough. The opposition isn't just going to get discouraged and quit to go home and sulk.

In 1959 when I got my first handgun training I was taught the importance of the second amendment, the need for vigilance and political activity, registration means confiscation, and evil only needs good people to do nothing.

"Where is the relief Trump campaigned on? Even when Com2a prevailed with Caetano it wasn't enough. The opposition isn't just going to get discouraged and quit to go home and sulk."

You do realize that if the lights went out in the WH it would be the "Republican's" who would be the first ones drop one behind Trump's left ear.
 
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.

Boy you sure know how to throw some cold water on my enthusiasm. I was day dreaming of all the stuff I could buy that Maura doesn't want me to have and all it would take is a fun road trip.
 
You are not out of date. You can still buy long guns out of state provided that you could legally buy it in your home state. The issue is that FFLs may only sell longs to an out of state resident that are legal for that person to buy in their home state. It has been this way for a very long time.

Ahhh... BUT! The question remains that I can buy a now prohibited long gun in a private sale from another inside the sate. TEHCHNICALLY that makes any prebanned dated long guns legal. Sure, we have cowardly FFLs out of state and they are generally just boycotting MA. Hell, becoming a resident with, "listed banned guns" makes them legal to sell privately. The Congressional bill requiring a NCIS check on private sales, forcibly pushes all sales to a FFL, thus eliminating the, "private sale" loophole.

Citation? I was under the impression from my lawyer it was "legal to own" not "legal to sell".

Private sales are a whole different potato. At least right now.
 
I do not agree with the Fifth Circuit's decision. However, the question of whether the Supreme Court should grant cert. raises an entirely separate set of considerations; the Supreme Court does not exist to right all errors below. The Solicitor General's response to the petition for cert., urging denial, is quite well written. I advise against betting the lunch money on this one.
 
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.

We have a collective moral duty and legal interest to make the EFA-10 system as inaccurate and useless as possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom