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

I thought a district court decision such as this, applies all across the nation. The point was made earlier that something can't be unconstitutional for one person and not for another-implying that constitutionality itself is nationwide. Am I in error? Plus the fact that the Plaintiffs themselves, unless I'm mistaken, reside in a different district, meaning that under what you're saying, it would be legal for them to purchase the handgun in Texas but then they would have violated the law in DC. That hardly helps.

To Calhoun: I'm well aware of how most gun dealers would do things. The Feds could come out with a blanket ruling today and plaster it all across the USA and gun dealers would still be denying purchases for years.

I wouldn't exactly be standing in line to be that dealer.

Since any law that itself is unconstitutional is itself unlawful, the ATF will be in violation of the law by not changing their regulations immediately, even if they anticipate an injunction. Of course, unless I'm mistaken, they flouted the law before saying simply that they disagreed with court decisions contrary to their own rules and then not changing the rules in compliance. I can't remember which ones offhand, but this was my understanding.

I know a former FFL holder who (according to him) lost his license over minutiae related directly to what the ATF considered violations of this ruling. Wonder if they'll reissue his license.

Yep, that's not right. Often the Supreme Court won't even take a case until there's separate decisions among district courts.

If it's not appealed from here, it is applicable only to the Fifth District.

If it is appealed, it goes to the Appeals court - and the decision coming out of there applies everywhere.

And then the Supreme Court has a chance to step in after that, and that decision obviously also applies everywhere.

Dave Hardy, prominent 2A attorney:



The other side of "may" is "may not".

I think there is reason to believe that anyone trying to enforce the stricken parts of the law would be in contempt of the district court which issued the ruling. But I don't think that is crystal clear... at least to me.

The question even less clear to me is whether this is in effect right now. As I understand it, if an appeal is anticipated, the defendant almost automatically gets a stay of mandate. Has that not happened in this case?

A stay must be requested. Once granted, and it will almost assuredly be granted, it will be immediate and perhaps retroactive.

No. If not appealed it applies to the 5th District. If appealed and upheld, it applies only to the 5th district. If the decision is upheld by the SCOTUS, it applies in all US jurisdictions.

Ah, thanks for the correction, 4ager. I thought an Appeals Court decision was cross-district (but I understand why it's not - I think ).

No problem.

This is where we get "circuit splits" on identical issues where one Appellate Court will rule one way on an issue and another an opposite way, creating a conflict in laws that almost always is then taken up by the SCOTUS in order to settle the issue.

So after further review, does this ruling mean simply that an individual can now purchase a handgun FTF from a FFL in a state not of his residence??

Legally, in 3 states it means that. But it will probably get a stay very quickly, plus you'll probably have a very hard time finding an FFL that will risk incurring BATFE's wrath.

So, legally, yes in LA/MS/TX.
Realistically, no.

Baby steps. Just baby step!

Are you positive of this? It doesn't seem right to me, that is basically saying that federal law is different in some places than others, which is just not the case. The case was tried in the District court because it pertained to a federal law, not a regional law, or state law. The Federal law is what is affected.

If it is only the district that is affected then the AG's best move here is to not appeal and allow only the states within the district to be affected by the law rather than appealing and having the case upheld and becoming law in all 50 states.

It will be appealed unless it scares the AG so bad he doesn’t want it to go past those three states. I cannot see that being a reality.

After all, it all about shipping.

That is my point, I don't see how this can only change Federal Law in 3 states. It is a Federal Law, meaning all of the US. There is not a different set of federals laws on the books for each district court region. So this is either the law for all the US or it is just another case waiting to be heard by a higher court and actually has no bearing on the actual law until that time. It cannot be the "Federal Law" for only 3 States.

It doesn't have to make sense my friend, it's the law.

Makes no sense to me either but sometimes I am not to bright.

The court in question only has jurisdiction over those three states, so that's how it works. There are extraordinary steps that could happen to go straight to the SC by Gura if the DOJ refused to appeal it, but that's unlikely to happen and unlikely that the SC would take it even if he tried it. What would probably happen is that Gura would find another perfect test case to take to trial in another district where a different result is likely (7th Circuit in Illinois/Indiana/Wisconsin has been very helpful here). From there, with differing results, he would push for the Supreme Court to hear it.

IANAL.

huhuh...huhhuh...huh

Thanks for your deep thoughts on this, Pat.

I personally think Gura's plan was to get a very friendly court decision to refer to, which is why he didn't find a plaintiff in someplace like Illinois or California to do first. Unlike McDonald or Heller, I think he was a little more unsure about pushing up an interstate handgun ban case without a very firm decision blasting the unconstitutionality. It might work out fine to argue the unconstitutionality of the law in an appeals court with only a case that finds against you, but it's a lot easier to argue it if you have at least one US District Court judge that agrees with you.

Jmho.