Federal interstate handgun ban ruled unconstitutional

[Randall53]

This is nothing but another law for criminals to ignore. I'm amazed that the Anti's really think that criminals purchase firearms legally anyway. I mean GEEESSHH!!!  

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr/2015/02/18/texas-judge-strikes-a-mighty-blow-for-the-second-amendment-n1958657

[Raoul]

Just remember, they think all gun owners are criminals

[Ugly]

Concur! The whole handgun in your home state law is ignorant! I see no way at all where this makes sense except to restrict the rights of a states residents. 

But I guess that is the point. 

 

[Randall53]

11 minutes ago, Raoul said:

Just remember, they think all gun owners are criminals

You're correct Raoul. They never acknowledge or apparently even see the words "law abiding" in front of "gun owner". 

[Garufa]

FYI, that ruling (and article) is nearly two years old.  The case is now called Mance vs. Lynch (after Loretta), was appealed, and as far as I know currently sits in limbo.

[Omega]

11 minutes ago, Randall53 said:

This is nothing but another law for criminals to ignore. I'm amazed that the Anti's really think that criminals purchase firearms legally anyway. I mean GEEESSHH!!!  

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr/2015/02/18/texas-judge-strikes-a-mighty-blow-for-the-second-amendment-n1958657

Ha, beat me to it; I just got done falling for click bait too. 

I hope this gets some traction, specially now that the SC won't be too far Left Leaning.  So if the Appeal loses (or goes to the SC), it should affect the entire US since it's an FFL rule right?

 

[Randall53]

12 minutes ago, Garufa said:

FYI, that ruling (and article) is nearly two years old.  The case is now called Mance vs. Lynch (after Loretta), was appealed, and as far as I know currently sits in limbo.

 That's what I get for posting before finishing my first pot of coffee....Ignore me and carry on!!! 

PS....the date is even in the link!!  Duh-huh!

Edited January 23, 2017 by Randall53

[Ugly]

I saw the date and remember reading it back then. It shows how good our judicial system is, or hope to say soon, was!

[monkeylizard]

2 hours ago, Omega said:

Ha, beat me to it; I just got done falling for click bait too. 

I hope this gets some traction, specially now that the SC won't be too far Left Leaning.  So if the Appeal loses (or goes to the SC), it should affect the entire US since it's an FFL rule right?

 

As I understand it, this ruling applies only to states within the 5th district. We'd need a similar ruling in the 6th district for it to apply in TN. However, if a case were brought in the 6th (or any other district) they will use the ruling from Texas as a guide. They don't have to agree or follow it, but they'll consider it. If that happens and two or more disagree, the odds of SCOTUS hearing it go up.

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by monkeylizard

[bigun]

The whole buying hand guns in another state being prohibited is wrong to me. Does not every state use the same federal back ground checking system.

 

[Omega]

48 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

As I understand it, this ruling applies only to states within the 5th district. We'd need a similar ruling in the 6th district for it to apply in TN. However, if a case were brought in the 6th (or any other district) they will use the ruling from Texas as a guide. They don't have to agree or follow it, but they'll consider it. If that happens and two or more disagree, the odds of SCOTUS hearing it go up.

 

So how does that work?  So in a few weeks when I head to TX I should try and get a gun there so it would involve us too?  It seems that that ruling, if the appeal loses, should be for district 5 and 4 (or wherever DC is) since the customer was from DC.  Or, again if the appeal loses, does TX, LA, MS get to sell to other states?

[monkeylizard]

I don't know for sure, but since the sale is stopped at the point of sale due to being an out of state buyer, I'd think the seller's location is what matters. In this case, Texas. To get something in District 6, we'd need someone to attempt an out-of-state purchase from a dealer located in any of the District 6 states. If you want to head up to Kentucky and be our test case, go for it  Since the District 5 case is currently in an appellate court, I'd expect the 6th District court to sit on it until that appeal was complete, one way or another.

 

In theory, if the appeal is denied, then yes, dealers in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi could indeed sell to buyers from any state. Dealers in other states wouldn't have a ruling from their own district court, so they'd be taking a chance by selling to an out of state buyer that their own district court would rule the same way District 5 did. That's the way I understand it, anyway. I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. This is not legal advice, just one monkey's understanding of how this mess of a legal system works.

Edited January 23, 2017 by monkeylizard

[Garufa]

4 hours ago, bigun said:

The whole buying hand guns in another state being prohibited is wrong to me. Does not every state use the same federal back ground checking system.

 

Yes but many "crime guns" in the oppressive states and municipalities can be traced to less restrictive jurisdictions where they were legally bought.

Not opining, just stating why the law is in place.

[DaveTN]

Rarely is one Circuits case heard by the SCOTUS. If there is differing opinions between the Federal Circuits the SCOTUS is more likely to hear the case.

So you can go to Kentucky and try to buy a handgun; that’s the easy part of getting it into the 6th Circuit. The hard part will be getting the money to pay attorney’s to take the case.

 

[Omega]

1 hour ago, Garufa said:

Yes but many "crime guns" in the oppressive states and municipalities can be traced to less restrictive jurisdictions where they were legally bought.

Not opining, just stating why the law is in place.

It's called supply and demand, I highly doubt that there would be more 'crime guns' if they could be purchased legally  since it would be just as illegal for them to do straw purchases.

[bigun]

3 hours ago, Garufa said:

Yes but many "crime guns" in the oppressive states and municipalities can be traced to less restrictive jurisdictions where they were legally bought.

Not opining, just stating why the law is in place.

But aren't these straw purchases?