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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Oral argument today in Gould... | Main | Heaven pity anyone who gets legal news from CNN »

Mance v. Sessions, en banc ruling

Posted by David Hardy · 25 July 2018 10:42 AM

Right here. The en banc court split dramatically, voting 8-7 to reverse the district court's issuance of an injunction. The issue involved DC residents who wanted to purchase a handgun from an FFL in Texas; the GCA forbids an FFL (anyone else) selling a handgun to any non-FFL who resides in a different state.

The problem was that there is only one FFL in the District of Columbia, and he charges a $125 fee to process a firearm.

The Fifth Circuit again assumed, without specifically deciding, that strict scrutiny applied. (p.7).

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Jerry | July 26, 2018 7:13 PM | Reply

the GCA forbids an FFL (anyone else) selling a handgun to any non-FFL who resides in a different state.

Um, DC = NOT a State.
No Governor, no Senator, no Representative…

Does the GCA say “other state” or “out of state” ?
I wonder what other loop-holes DC residents enjoy ?

Jerry | July 26, 2018 9:47 PM | Reply

After thought :

How would this work on an (American) indian reservation ?

FWB | July 26, 2018 11:35 PM | Reply

If GCA says state then any Maryland ffl can handle the transfer but the CGA is unconstitutional since the Contitution does not grant power to license FFLS. The powers of the feds are "few and defined" so if it's not written it is not not defined so the Congress cannot legitimately enact statutes.

Besides the DC Council is unconstitutional and all enactments by the DC council are not law. The Constitution grants exclusive legislation to the Congress with no authority to allow the DC Council to make laws.

Bill | July 27, 2018 10:25 AM | Reply

The GCA specifically says that for the purposes of the Act, Washington DC is a "state".

FWB | July 29, 2018 11:18 AM | Reply

I love how Congress believes they can redefine blue to be red or up to be down. "State" is a universally recognized term which Congress is not empowered to define. Note that DC is not a "state" relative to the commerce clause regardless of what Congress wants to say because DC was not a part of the ratification process to be one of the member "United States". Recall that the USA ARE a Union and NOT a singular nation. The members of the Union are free and independent NATIONS, often referred to as States, and DC does not qualify as a member of the Union, merely as the seat of government. Powers not explicitly granted are not granted at all. Congress cannot legitimately define "militia" or "natural born citizen" because those terms have definitions that pre-exist the Constitution.

So one reaches the conclusion that the CGA 68 contains numerous unconstitutional provisions, primarily because Congress' power to regulate commerce among the several states DOES NOT ALLOW Congress to regulate things in commerce as per every writer on the Constitution up to roughly 1900. No amendments were made and the Courts have no legitimate power to expand on the granted powers using implied, inherent, or attached powers. Creating/allowing/expanding powers in such a manner is amending the Constitution without following the legal process.


One must understand is that the feds can only legislate within the granted powers. Madison - "few and defined". Not written - not defined.

Never re-elect an incumbent.

Leave a comment