Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Group (CCRKBA) Demands Interstate Sale of Handguns

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/07/15/69488.htm

FORT WORTH (CN) - The federal government's ban on the purchase of handguns outside of a person's state of residence violates the seller's and buyer's constitutional rights, a gun rights group claims in court.

The Citizens Committee for the Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, federally licensed firearms dealer Frederic Russell Mance Jr., of Texas, and gun buyers Tracey and Andrew Hanson, of Washington, D.C., sued U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones in Federal Court on Monday.

The plaintiffs claim the ban stops the formation of a national handgun market.

"Americans are free to purchase rifles and shotguns across state lines, so long as those transactions comply with the laws of the seller's and purchaser's states," the 11-page lawsuit states. "But under federal law, no American may lawfully purchase a handgun outside his or her state of residence. This prohibition plainly reduces competition, raises prices, and limits consumers' choices in the handgun market."

The plaintiffs say several states do not oppose "and even welcome" in-state handgun sales.

"Federal law with respect to interstate rifle and shotgun sales provides a ready example of a more carefully tailored alternative, prohibiting sales that violate state law - and permitting those that do not," the complaint states. "There is no need to criminalize the entire interstate handgun market."

The plaintiffs say the ban shields in-state dealers from competition from a national handgun market and makes the handguns more expensive for out-of-state buyers. Mance claims the Hansons visited his store in June from out of town, and were unable to buy the guns because of the ban.

"In the District of Columbia, where the Hansons reside, only one federally licensed firearms dealer, Charles Sykes, is currently in the business of transferring handguns purchased at retail to District residents," the complaint states. "Sykes carries no inventory himself, but charges $125 per transfer for handguns received from other dealers. Thus, the federal interstate handgun transfer ban increases the cost of handgun purchases by District of Columbia residents by $125, plus the costs of shipping the handguns to Sykes from other dealers."

Federal officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday evening.

Founded in 1971 in Bellevue, Wash., the CCRKBA claims more than 615,000 members.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Second and Fifth Amendments. They are represented by William Mateja with Fish Richardson in Dallas.

Thank you CCRKBA

Cannot be right. Must be a made up story. Washington is a blue state and only flaming liberal pukes live there. It always ranks low in lists of gun friendly states.

Since the instant check system is a NATIONAL system, I can't see how you can defend making a person only buy in their state of residence.

agreed. we're either the USA or we're not.

the dogs of war are on the verge of being released.

surely, a bit of rational logic can prevail for a spell longer?

This law has always bothered me, as well. There's just no reason for it even existing. I only live about 25 miles from the KY border, and have occasionally purchased a long gun from KY stores that are close to me. There's simply no reason that I shouldn't be able to do the same with handguns.

I would think Heller stating that the right to own handguns cannot be barred should have an impact on this. At the time of the interstate ban, most politicians thought it perfectly appropriate to be able to ban handguns from any state or city that wanted them banned.

So while Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, can they totally ban the interstate sale of an item which is constitutionally allowed to be owned by all citizens? Can't see where that falls into any level of scrutiny considering the existence of the instant background check.

If the interstate handgun ban is overturned. It would be a big blow to the handgun roster BS law in California. I am not sure how the Cali law is not overturned already. It is stopping and regulating interstate commerce by one state.

The excuse in the past was that there were no national criminal databases. But these days a private company like LexusNexus can do a criminal search in all 50 states and tell if someone is a felon in seconds. If those data streams are available to LexusNexus, you can damn well be sure they're available to BATFE and the FBI. Just no excuse for it anymore.

The only thing to work out is compliance with home state laws. Example, there are OODLES of handguns you can buy in Nevada that you can't buy in the People's Republik of Kalifornia. So since it's been allowed that states can regulate, then they'll have to work that detail out to ensure compliance. And of course, they'd never do the obvious and just put the onus on the buyer...after all, us gun owners are a bunch of psychotic mass murderers.

Technically it's not "banned". I can (and often do) buy a handgun in another state, but the provision is that it goes through a dealer in my state, which is how they ensure compliance with state laws. So that's the detail they need to work out, how to ensure that if a handgun is bought in one state, the purchase is in compliance with the laws of the state where the purchaser lives.

ultimately, the voters will have the opportunity to decide.

it's both as simple and complex as that.

let the voters decide.

are we the USA?

Formed 43 years ago. Was WA blue then?

Okay, technically not banned. But the level of effort is far above what an average person can manage. How many non-gun folks know a local gun shop that will do gun transfers? The major chains won't do gun transfers, so just knowing there's a Cabela's or Bass Pro down the road is no help.

Also a fact that should be argued is that a person's constitutional rights don't end at their state border. If I'm working in another state, or staying with a friend or even on vacation - I should NOT be barred the right to buy a handgun for self defense just because I can't get to my home state to accept it from a FFL.

If a person disregards that unconstitutional handgun ban and sells a handgun across state lines (private transaction) has that person really broken a law, considering that ALL laws that violate the 2nd Amendment are null-and-void??

Excellent legal argument. I hope it wins.

Private, person to person sales, don't go through any background checking process.

While I personally feel that that should be perfectly acceptable, I wouldn't count on that "unconstitutional" defense if you get caught........

You are right, of course. But there's nothing more dangerous than being right when your government is wrong.

Which may be an argument for banning private sales of handguns across state lines. But why shouldn't it be legal to have a local FFL in the remote state transfer it to you? Why should you have to go to a local FFL and transfer it to him, so that he can ship it to another FFL, who then transfers it to you?

It's a double-edge sword, that would ultimately land the responsibility of the seller (FFL or not) to know the firearms laws of any or all the states. As rapidly as gun laws are changing, whether it be banned/prohibited guns, or magazines, or magazine capacities, keeping up with said changes would be a nightmare for the seller (FFL holders in particular), and could put them in an unenviable position.