February 12, 2015 at 12:36 am #36361
This means that you can go to another state and by a handgun from a licensed dealer.
Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation have achieved another significant victory toward restoring second amendment rights. In the federal District Court in Dallas, United States Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the interstate ban on h
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.
Accordingly, the Court DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a) are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing these provisions. The Court will issue its final judgment separately.
SO ORDERED on this 11th day of February, 2015.
The court also ruled that the law was unconstitutional on its face, under strict scrutiny:
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendants have not shown that the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means of achieving the Government’s goals under current law. The federal interstate handgun transfer ban is therefore unconstitutional on its face.
The 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.
The Court also found that the law failed under the standards for strict scrutiny, and that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
This is only at the district court level. It is almost certain that this ruling will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, of which Texas is a part.
This ruling only applies to FFL transfers of handguns. It does not apply to private sales of handguns. Still, it is a significant step away from the centralization of all regulation and power by the federal government.
©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun WatchFebruary 12, 2015 at 12:42 am #36365
Until I get the update from ATF, not gonna take that risk.
But major score in any case!February 12, 2015 at 12:48 am #36366
It will find it’s way to the Supreme Court eventually.February 12, 2015 at 1:02 am #36369
<div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>74 wrote:</div>It will find it’s way to the Supreme Court eventually.
That’s a given considering our attorney general and company.February 12, 2015 at 1:42 am #36372
OK so in plan English what will this mean if the Supreme Court hears it? Also the Supreme may say no to hearing it and then the law stands as unconstitutional.February 12, 2015 at 1:54 am #36373
It would have to go thru the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit first. As of right now the law is voided.February 12, 2015 at 2:14 am #36377
What is the Fifth Circuit like? Is it loaded with O appointees? Anyone know how they have come down on states rights previously?February 12, 2015 at 2:37 am #36378
Well if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit hears it and has another opinion ruling then yes it would go to the Supreme Court.February 12, 2015 at 2:52 am #36381
“The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over the federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It often has the last word on questions of federal law, so it’s imperative that the court is staffed with fair-minded judges who uphold the rule of law and treat all litigants equally. Unfortunately, a series of far-right appointments by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have turned the Fifth Circuit into perhaps the most activist, politically-motivated Circuit Court of Appeals in the country. Ten of its 15 active judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, and its decisions often reflect a concerted effort by Republican administrations to impose a conservative policy agenda through the courts.”February 12, 2015 at 11:21 am #36392
Well this is good news. We will see were it goes.February 12, 2015 at 1:17 pm #36401
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Massachusetts. Right now only specific makes and models can be bought in Massachusetts. If it isn’t on the official list approved by the State Attorney General that gun is deemed illegal to own. Manufacturers have to prove to the MA Attorney General that their guns meet all MA safety standards in order to get on the approved list. Some have given up trying. Most companies that sell gun related supplies….ammo, magazines etc. refuse to ship into MA because the State sometimes files suit against these companies for selling items that are either not legal in MA or selling items to people they can’t prove can legally own it. For example, you can’t buy ammo in MA without showing your gun license. Unless the ammo supplier can demonstrate they knew their MA customer had a current license they are at risk of legal action. Hence, they don’t ship into MA. My guess is that MA will ignore the ruling and just say it doesn’t apply to them. The previous Attorney General in MA, Martha Coakley, was on record as saying that the States are not bound by the Bill of Rights, that it only applied to the Federal Govt. She said it specifically in reference to gun rights.
OK, so go ahead. Ask me if I miss living in MA? LOLFebruary 12, 2015 at 2:54 pm #36405
MB, I am glade the previous Attorney General in retired. To make a statement that the States are not bound by the Bill of Rights is nuts!February 12, 2015 at 4:24 pm #36411
Yes, she was nuts. She’s the one who ran against Scott Brown to replace Teddy Kennedy but she was sufficiently arrogant to assume that being the Democratic candidate in overwhelmingly Democratic MA meant an automatic win. Talking to average people on the street was beneath her.February 12, 2015 at 6:46 pm #36422
I find it hard to believe that the same place that celebrates Patriots Day, April 19th the day the Shot Heard Around the World was taken at the Old North Bridge. Is the same place that has all of these laws. Everyone that fought at Bunker Hill, Lexington & Concord would be attacking the state house now.February 12, 2015 at 7:47 pm #36427
74, yes it is ironic what MA has become. Patriots Day is still a State Holiday at least and in Suffolk County (where Boston is), they still have the Bunker Hill Day holiday. The other ironic thing is that Smith & Wesson is still a big presence in MA plus they’ve got Savage Arms, Yankee Hill, and a few smaller manufacturers, probably all there as an accident of history and still drawing upon a quality workforce.
MA maintains a registry of all guns bought or sold in the State, including private sales, and license holders must notify both their local police and the State whenever they move so that the State can keep track of where the gun owners are. You’ll lose your license if you don’t. The only non-registered guns would be ones you brought with you when you moved into the State, but even those guns must comply with MA laws as to which ones can be legally possessed or not. Gun ownership rates are very low in MA and so they get away with it. It is one of the wealthiest States and has a high standard of living by almost any measure and for the majority that is what they want. MA does not recognize licenses from any other State and possessing so much as a single spent cartridge (on your person, in your car, or in your home) without a gun license will get you jail time and a felony on your record. You can still have a 10 round clip though (5 shell max for shotguns) which is better than NY.
So, this is why I am interested how MA will react to this court ruling.
Edited to add: And all this is why MA State Govt. does not like Vermont with its almost total absence of gun laws in combination with the lowest violent crime rate in the nation. MA State Govt. also doesn’t like New Hampshire with its absence of Sales Tax and personal Income Taxes.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.