Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« "The 2A was only meant to protect muskets" | Main | California Lawyer magazine on Chuck Michel »

Ban on FFL handguns sales to nonresidents struck down!

Posted by David Hardy · 11 February 2015 11:36 AM

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

RAH | February 11, 2015 11:50 AM | Reply

Does the apply to all states?

Chad | February 11, 2015 12:42 PM | Reply

I'm trying to figure out how this does not apply to interstate sales of health insurance.

Jacob | February 11, 2015 12:54 PM | Reply

Because you don't have a constitutional right to health insurance.

NotClauswitz | February 11, 2015 12:57 PM | Reply

Go Rick and Alan!!

J T Bolt | February 11, 2015 1:23 PM | Reply

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?

RAH | February 11, 2015 1:43 PM | Reply

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

denton | February 11, 2015 2:00 PM | Reply

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?

kukuforguns | February 11, 2015 2:35 PM | Reply

I foresee the price of handguns going down in California. Competition is good.

Harry Schell | February 11, 2015 3:16 PM | Reply

"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.

Jim | February 11, 2015 7:52 PM | Reply

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?

Mark-1 | February 11, 2015 10:28 PM | Reply

Pretty significant that court found statute unconstitutional and denied dismissal. Certain all these latest decisions will find their way to higher courts.

VonZorch replied to comment from RAH | February 12, 2015 4:14 PM | Reply

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.

475okh | February 12, 2015 4:46 PM | Reply

Baby steps. Just baby steps.

Jeff replied to comment from Jacob | February 12, 2015 5:45 PM | Reply

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.

Jeff replied to comment from kukuforguns | February 12, 2015 6:19 PM | Reply

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.

pdxr13 replied to comment from Jacob | February 13, 2015 2:12 PM | Reply

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.

Glenn Bellamy | February 13, 2015 6:00 PM | Reply

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.

Leave a comment