Federal Judge Declares Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban Unconstitutional

[xsubsailor]

 This would be nice if it stands.

 

 

In a ruling issued today, a Federal judge has declared that the longstanding ban on gun dealers selling handguns to residents in different states is not only unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but also violates other fair trade provisions of the United States Constitution.

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/foghorn/breaking-federal-judge-declares-interstate-handgun-transfer-ban-unconstitutional/

[Omega]

Yes, it would specially since I live right on the border.  It sucks that I can't buy a handgun when its less than 5 miles from the house and on my way home from work.

[Ugly]

The law is ignorant, no matter how you look at it.

[Grand Torino]

The law is ignorant, no matter how you look at it.

Well it's a federal law so......

[Ugly]

Well it's a federal law so......

Hahaha

[ProfEngr]

*IF* it manages to stand, how long til it takes effect?

[Oh Shoot]

*IF* it manages to stand, how long til it takes effect?

 

Not that simple. That was a district court ruling from a single judge only. Not sure a part of the USC can actually be demanded for repeal by Congress except by the Supremes?

 

As I get it, the plaintiffs in the case only could now go to another state and buy a handgun from an FFL. As if they could find one that would do it. So it's sort of a case law benchmark, but how that may eventually transfer to actual law of the land short of SCOTUS decision I dunno. And if the gov doesn't appeal it, well...??

 

Maybe Chip will Chip In on this one. ;)

 

- OS

Edited February 12, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[cybernorris]

It should stand immediately in the district where the ruling was made. I suspect DOJ will ask for a stay pending appeal.

Just read the whole ruling. It is very well presented. Any federal judge's ruling is valid in their district unless overturned. We are not in that district, so don't yet be expecting to pick up handguns in neighboring states just yet. However, unless the ruling is stayed, you should be able to purchase a handgun in the Northern District of Texas.

Are there any Internet based gun dealers within that district? Can one do the NICS paperwork via fax, phone or the Net? Edited February 12, 2015 by cybernorris

[Oh Shoot]

It should stand immediately in the district where the ruling was made. I suspect DOJ will ask for a stay pending appeal.

Just read the whole ruling. It is very well presented. Any federal judge's ruling is valid in their district unless overturned. I don't think we are in that district, so don't yet be expecting to pick up handguns in neighboring states just yet.

 

Well, the district was just northern Texas, so theoretically any FFL in that district could sell handguns to out of state residents. Like any actually would, eh?

 

Also though, federal law says sales have to conform with state laws, so anyone from a state whose state law forbids it couldn't anyway (and there are a number that do).

 

- OS

[cybernorris]

Wonder if TN Legislature could pass something this session allowing dealers to sell to out of state residents and residents to buy from out of state..... or if TN law already allows this?

[midtennchip]

I think OhShoot has it right. Theoretically, the case is binding only as to those parties. The reason is that a district court opinion is not binding on any other court (since a district court has no courts below it that are bound by its decisions). I have even seen contradictory opinions in the same district fairly regularly. But even if it was binding within the entire Northern District of Texas, the opinion declares unconstitutional an interstate transaction (by definition, one that would involve people or entities in at least 2 districts). So, no real way to enforce this.

The opinion supposedly enjoins the defendants from enforcing the law, so I would guess that the defendants will file an appeal and seek to delay the injunction until the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules (probably 6 to 9 months, or longer).

I am still reading the opinion, so I will likely post some commentary on the ruling itself later.

[midtennchip]

The court's opinion is well-written and pretty understandable for most people. If this kind of thing interests you, I recommend reading it. The gist of the opinion is that the added level of an in-state FFL is not "narrowly tailored" to prevent handgun crime. The court specifically points out that the law was written in 1968, before instant background checks. Court siad it didn't believe a second FFL (one in the purchaser's own state) was any better at preventing purchases by dangerous people than any other FFL (including one in another state).

This court applied "strict scrutiny" (the highest level) to its analysis. I suspect this will be the main issue on appeal. However, there are other circuits (namely the 4th) that have found that plaintiffs like the ones in this case didn't even have standing to bring the lawsuit. If the 5th circuit falls in line with the 4th, this case could be overturned without even looking at the actual merits of the case.

It will be interesting.

[DaveTN]

Wonder if TN Legislature could pass something this session allowing dealers to sell to out of state residents and residents to buy from out of state..... or if TN law already allows this?

They can’t; FFL’s are Federal and go by Federal law (and some state restrictions). You would also need an FFL that would do it; they aren’t going to risk their license, it is their livelihood.

Dealers can already sell long guns to out of state residents (in their store), but most won’t because they are responsible for complying with both states laws.

Tennessee already tried thumbing their nose at the Feds with the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act. FFL’s all got letters making it clear that won’t fly.
The law says residents here can buy guns and suppressors made here without going through an FFL. But try to find someone to sell you one.

[JohnC]

They can’t; FFL’s are Federal and go by Federal law (and some state restrictions). You would also need an FFL that would do it; they aren’t going to risk their license, it is their livelihood.

Dealers can already sell long guns to out of state residents (in their store), but most won’t because they are responsible for complying with both states laws.

Tennessee already tried thumbing their nose at the Feds with the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act. FFL’s all got letters making it clear that won’t fly.
The law says residents here can buy guns and suppressors made here without going through an FFL. But try to find someone to sell you one.

Yup. Did no good.

http://youtu.be/WAgzW8PpSB0


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JWKilgore]

I think OhShoot has it right. Theoretically, the case is binding only as to those parties. The reason is that a district court opinion is not binding on any other court (since a district court has no courts below it that are bound by its decisions). I have even seen contradictory opinions in the same district fairly regularly. But even if it was binding within the entire Northern District of Texas, the opinion declares unconstitutional an interstate transaction (by definition, one that would involve people or entities in at least 2 districts). So, no real way to enforce this.

The opinion supposedly enjoins the defendants from enforcing the law, so I would guess that the defendants will file an appeal and seek to delay the injunction until the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules (probably 6 to 9 months, or longer).

 

I am discussing this in another forum, and I hoped someone here would have a good explanation as to "what next". As an update, the 5th Circuit denied the government's request for a 60-day stay back in late February.

 

As I understand this:

 - The ruling means that specific gun shop may sell a handgun to that specific buyer and the ATF can't enforce the law prohibiting it. They may, however, decide to figure out some other way to get back at the gun shop (like a relative of mine who sued the IRS and won, then got his taxes audited every year for the next decade), but that's another issue. You will never find an FFL willing to risk their license/livelihood based on this ruling.

 

 - If the ruling is appealed and upheld in the 5th district, it will apply to the entire 5th District. I would then be able to purchase a handgun from an FFL in my home state of MS. If it is appealed to the SCOTUS and upheld it will apply nationwide and congress will have to re-write the law.

 

 - This has zero effect on me right now, but it bears watching.

 

 

Honestly, the best course of action for the ATF might be to just let it drop. Let this specific sale go through, then pull the FFL's license in a few years on some trumped-up technicality. Someone else would have to roll the dice on a lawsuit before it would apply to anybody else.