SAF CHALLENGES BAN ON INTERSTATE HANDGUN SALES

[Ink]

I appreciate the reps guys. Thanks.... but these organizations along with GOAL do awesome things. I can't spare much time... tho i try but i am fortunate i can spare money. a small price to pay to fight for our rights.

BTW if you spot a silver jeep with NES zombie stickers and COM2a stickers... beep. It's ME!

 

[swampy]

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.

Perhaps we should start a legal challenge fund now and be ready to file a challenge the same day the bill passes.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Perhaps we should start a legal challenge fund now and be ready to file a challenge the same day the bill passes.

Great idea! What do you think we're (Comm2A) are here for?

Seriously though, it will be a long time before we can challenge anything. First, Michelle Lane has to win her case. Then, the MA legislature has to actually pass a law. I'm not holding my breath, especially on the second point. It will be a while before anyone in the state seriously notices what's happening and tries to do anything.

 

[terraformer]

Then, the MA legislature has to actually pass a law.

Meaning, a law prohibiting MA residents from bringing back the guns they purchased over the border, which doesn't exist today.

 

[Mr Weebles]

The SAF is doing all of the things the NRA should have been doing all along.

And since the NRA almost screwed up pending pro-2A legislation in NH, my membership with them will be canceled and my money will go to the SAF from now on.

 

[GSG]

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

Definitely. Right now 4 FTF's per year and the approved lists are probably helping to keep a lot of Mass. FFL's in business. This would give them some skin in the game.

This case makes me happy.

Me too. Exciting times we live in.

 

[seanc]

If this does pass..I see that they will declare that as DC is not a state it is not applicable anywhere other than DC.

 

[Jose]

If this does pass..I see that they will declare that as DC is not a state it is not applicable anywhere other than DC.

I believe the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause will derail that narrow of an interpretation.

 

[jar]

If this does pass..I see that they will declare that as DC is not a state it is not applicable anywhere other than DC.

That would be pretty ripe for an equal protection challenge.

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Although they've not found their way into the fight yet, don't discount the commerce issues implicated here either. The FFL system established by GCA68 and the state of residence provision extend to the states a control over interstate commerce that they don't enjoy anywhere else except for the distribution of alcoholic beverages. And that control is specifically prescribed in the 21st Amendment.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Plaintiffs filed their reply to defendants' opposition this week. I'm not through it yet, but it's shaping up to be another good read.

The city is also trying to moot the case by allowing the one reaming DC FFL (who had lost his lease) to operate INSIDE the Metropolitan Police Department!

 

[milktree]

Plaintiffs filed their reply to defendants' opposition this week. I'm not through it yet, but it's shaping up to be another good read.

The city is also trying to moot the case by allowing the one reaming DC FFL (who had lost his lease) to operate INSIDE the Metropolitan Police Department!

Wouldn't that be an interesting precedent?

 

[terraformer]

I hope he refuses to. Him giving up his FFL would be one of the greatest sacrifices

He's already said yes. His business was zero once he lost his lease so it's a bit much to hope for him to refuse. But the nice thing is once it happens, the harm to Michelle Lane has occurred and the suit can proceed otherwise for her.

 

[richc]

Wouldn't that be an interesting precedent?

So people will be walking in and of the DC police headquarters with firearms?

Why do I think that is just a bad idea...

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

So people will be walking in and of the DC police headquarters with firearms?

Why do I think that is just a bad idea...

They have to anyway. The registration and inspection process in DC law requires owners to bring their guns to the station. If anything, it saves the gun buyer a trip.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The city is also trying to moot the case by allowing the one reaming DC FFL (who had lost his lease) to operate INSIDE the Metropolitan Police Department!

I know the FFL was charging something like $125 for a transfer, but given the hassle of doing business in DC, and the exposure of courts that will no doubt be sympathetic to product liability claims, I would be hesitant to call his fee a reaming.

Or did you mean remaining?

It would indeed be interesting for other individuals to request equal access to conduct business inside the PD.

 

[terraformer]

So people will be walking in and of the DC police headquarters with firearms?

Why do I think that is just a bad idea...

Because you have more than half a brain which apparently is 50% more brain than the DC councilors. I have to say, watching Lane unfold has been beyond entertaining beyond belief.

 

[terraformer]

The city is also trying to moot the case by allowing the one reaming DC FFL (who had lost his lease) to operate INSIDE the Metropolitan Police Department!

They can't moot it. The harm happened and they will have to see this through.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Well, this sucks

They can't moot it. The harm happened and they will have to see this through.

They did moot the case. The motion for PI was denied and the case was dismissed.

I'm sure we're not entirely done with this issue. There's always the matter of a possible appeal and of course there's also Dearth v. Holder.

 

[jar]

Gura already said on twitter that there will be an appeal. At least the dismissal at district happened fast.

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk

 

[cekim]

Bummer...

 

[neEEGuru]

The gun shop in the police station to thwart the lawsuit? wow. nice. And this actually worked?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Well it worked long enough to get the suit shutdown (for now). I don't believe that the FFL is actually operating yet.

 

[rlee]

And will other startup FFLs be provided PD space until they can get their storefront?

 

[Remsport Mfg]

The state will be able to find a way to regulate this. Look at what it has done with ammo.
All the major distributors won't sell ammo to MA. They won't even sell ammo to FFL's in MA. They will and can come up with an out of state sale regulation not a law so it won't have to be passed, just a regulation like the AG's Consumer Safety Reg.
This state makes it very hard to be in the gun business.
Not as hard as DC but hard just the same.