Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Wow! Court Strikes Down Interstate Gun Transfer Prohibition

OK, I suppose I must be.

From the ruling:

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.

Am I correct in assuming that this Trial Court ruling only applies to the Plaintiffs (the Hansons)?

The folks wanted to buy two handguns in Texas but could not under current law. They were in Texas, they live in DC. They could not buy in Texas but would have had to have the handguns shipped to the DC FFL. This clear thinking federal judge sat the law prohibiting the folks from buying straight from the Texas FFL is unconstitutional.

Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a pro-Second Amendment advocacy organization based in Bellevue, Washington, which helped fund the lawsuit, said he was “on cloud nine.”

“This case shows, if you can’t buy a handgun, you can’t exercise your Second Amendment right, because you can’t acquire it,” he said.

The Texas court applied “strict scrutiny” when evaluating the case, something other courts have been reluctant to do when dealing with the Second Amendment, he said.

For example, if the federal government wanted to prohibit bookstores from selling books to out-of-state residents, those residents could sue, citing a violation of their First Amendment rights, and they would have standing. The same standard historically hasn’t been given to Second Amendment cases, Mr. Gottlieb said.

“You’re allowed to buy a book and now you’re allowed to buy your gun. With this case, we’re able to create that analogy and have it stand,” said Mr. Gottlieb. “It greatly helps those arguing on behalf of the Second

"The Texas court applied “strict scrutiny” when evaluating the case, something other courts have been reluctant to do when dealing with the Second Amendment, he said."

I thought as soon as I read this yesterday that the level of scrutiny applied might be the really BIG news. I was gonna wait on isaac to chime in and ask him, but it looks like this guy sees it the same way.

But.... boilerproofing the decision by applying two levels of scrutiny might set a bad precedent.

Or not???

Waiting on Calhoun and Denton.... .

The folks wanted to buy two handguns in Texas but could not under current law. They were in Texas, they live in DC. They could not buy in Texas but would have had to have the handguns shipped to the DC FFL. This clear thinking federal judge sat the law prohibiting the folks from buying straight from the Texas FFL is unconstitutional.

He wasn't ruling on that provision, though, was he?

So...

can I buy a handgun by simply paying the money & filling out a 4473 ? , or will I have to show them a NC CCW or PP as required by NC law ?

Will a FFL in the 5th Circuit region recognize a NC CCW or PP if I am required to show it , will they even know what a NC CCW or PP is ?

Mike

Considering that the case will be appealed and an injunction granted, all that line of questioning is academic at this point.

As of right now then, it is totally legal to buy a handgun from an FFL dealer across the state line then (as far as Federal law is concerned), and it will remain that way until an injunction is granted to the Feds?

As of right now then, it is totally legal to buy a handgun from an FFL dealer across the state line then (as far as Federal law is concerned), and it will remain that way until an injunction is granted to the Feds?