« "The 2A was only meant to protect muskets" | Main | California Lawyer magazine on Chuck Michel »
Ban on FFL handguns sales to nonresidents struck down!
Mance v. Holder, opinion in pdf. US District Court for the Northern District of Texas holds that the ban is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. A resident of Washington, DC (which now allows handgun in the home, if registered) wanted to buy a handgun from a Texas FFL, because there's only one FFL in DC and he charges $125 to do the paperwork. The seller had standing to sue in Texas, since would otherwise lose the sale. The court holds that the GCA prohibition on the sale fails strict scrutiny, and also intermediate scrutiny, and enjoins enforcement of the restriction. Another win for the industrious Alan Gura!
UPDATE: it's not clear to me how the ruling applies geographically. Clearly it applies in the Northern District of Texas. But it orders the Attorney General (any by extension anyone working under him) to stop enforcing the requirement, so may apply anywhere: if he enforced it in Maine or in Washington, he'd have violated the injunction, and could be held in contempt by the Texas court. Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was an organizational plaintiff (the court cites to it without the first word in its name), suing on behalf of its members, so the ruling would protect, at the very least, its members.
FURTHER UPDATE: the court's ruling is limited to purchases from an FFL. The gov't was citing problems that led to enactment of the interstate ban (felons from DC buying in Maryland) and the court notes the gov't can't come up with any more recent accounts. It probably had in mind the background check requirement for FFL purchases.
17 Comments | Leave a comment
I'm trying to figure out how this does not apply to interstate sales of health insurance.
Because you don't have a constitutional right to health insurance.
Go Rick and Alan!!
NRA puts up scary headlines to try to induce me to donate money. Meh.
But I always send some dough to SAF when they win something, and withhold when they screw up. Prop the Manchin bill? No check. Win a case like this? Where is my checkbook?
I read that he enjoined Holder to not enforce those provisions so I also thought it had national implications. However I wonder how a District Court has that authority
Question for Dave: If this is upheld, does it mean that an individual may transfer a firearm directly to an individual in another state, or does this ruling apply only to individuals purchasing a firearm from an FFL outside their home state?
I foresee the price of handguns going down in California. Competition is good.
"I foresee the price of handguns going down in California. Competition is good."
I would, too., but the role of the CA roster appears unknown as to whether it bans importation of a non-roster firearm.
Naturally, CA DOJ would try to enforce it that way. Our saucy AG has a reputation to uphold and a Senate seat she wants.
Seems to me also that the cited parts of USC are blown out of the water, don't see how this cannot apply nationally.
I could be wrong.
I find it interesting that the judge ordered Holder to stop enforcing the provision ruled unconstitutional. I assume that the relevant portion of the law is voided, but that's not clear. If people run to Texas and buy their handguns, but this ruling is later overturned, then Holder is again free to enforce it. I wonder if all those who bought handguns from out of state are then liable to prosecution?
Pretty significant that court found statute unconstitutional and denied dismissal. Certain all these latest decisions will find their way to higher courts.
If I am correct, any federal judges decision sets precedence for the entire nation. If another federal court makes a different decision the cases may be passed up to the appropriate Court of Appeals.
Not certain, you might want to ask a lawyer.
Baby steps. Just baby steps.
Chad: "I'm trying to figure out how this does not apply to interstate sales of health insurance."
Perhaps it does, but so what? There is no federal law against interstate sales of health insurance.
I'm not Dave, and he is of course free to overrule me at any time, but I'm pretty sure this case (1) won't directly authorize non-FFLs to transfer guns to anybody but (2) will create a precedent that could very well lead to other cases that do.
I do have a Constitutional Right to not do gambling in the medical industry. I'm not "insured" nor will I ever be. I will pay a doctor if I need one, and I will ask the price before the procedure. "Insurance" is gambling, just as there is a move to buy "insurance" from the dealer in Blackjack.
The court expressly struck down both subsections of 922, subsection (a)(3), which prohibited private transfers of firearms, other than by inheritance, between residents of different states, and subsection (b)(3), which prohibited transfers of handguns to residents if another state.
Does the apply to all states?