That was their cunning plan in United States Vs. Rock Island Armory, Inc (773 F.Supp. 117 (C.D.Ill. 1991) ) and it worked.

I figured I'd post full text. Since I'm trying to fully and completely grasp what this is all about. Sorry guys I'm having a senior moment.

18 U.S.C. § 922
(3) for any person, other than a licensed im- porter, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or re- ceive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business en- tity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State,
except that this paragraph (A) shall not pre- clude any person who lawfully acquires a fire- arm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State,
(B) shall not apply to the transportation or re- ceipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter

T.D. ATF–270, 53 FR 10497, Mar. 31, 1988]
§ 478.99 Certain prohibited sales or de- liveries.
(a) Interstate sales or deliveries. A li- censed importer, licensed manufac- turer, licensed dealer, or licensed col- lector shall not sell or deliver any fire- arm to any person not licensed under this part and who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if a corporation or other business entity, does not main- tain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business or activity is located: Provided, That the foregoing provisions of this para- graph (1) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of a rifle or shotgun (curio or relic, in the case of a licensed col- lector) to a resident of a State other than the State in which the licensee’s place of business or collection premises is located if the requirements of § 478.96(c) are fully met, and (2) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes (see § 478.97).



.........now did I miss anything? I'm not deciphering this jargon so well today...

No.



Right now, in the Federal judicial District of North Texas (unless stayed on appeal), an out-of-state person, otherwise legally able under Federal law to purchase a handgun, can purchase a handgun in that Federal judicial District from an FFL in that judicial District- subject to any Texas law (which apparently there is no issue with) and any law in their home state.



You can't have one delivered to your house in Oregon because you can't fill out the 4473 by phone - and Oregon isn't in the Federal judicial District of North Texas.

Wasn't the non-resident purchase ban affirmed in another district, Ohio I think?  The test case of the US citizen currently residing in Canada.

Holy shitsnacks, common sense prevails!  Hope this is the judge hearing Hollis!

Think it means you can buy a pistol from an FFL in person in any state (at least any state in the 5th District).

If you look on Popvox at bills under consideration, you'll see they already do this, and the effect is much like what TXguy says.  The devil is in the details.  The titles lie even worse.

SCOTUS?  Hell, just other District and Circuit Court judges.  Once a couple do that, the others have support for that thinking.

And yet, by the original intent of the Commerce Clause, such bans on products made in a different state would be unconstitutional... Like banning Iowa corn being sold in Oklahoma.

No, you would have to go pick it up in person if I understand the ruling correctly.

They need to find the entire state of Maryland unconstitutional

She's not even breathing hard...



 

More on this...  No doubt  unconstitutional:

- - -  - -  -

"Federal Interstate Handgun Sales Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

In another excellent victory for civil rights by attorney Alan Gura, United States District Court Judge Reed O’Connor struck down the federal interstate handgun sales ban earlier today, finding it unconstitutional (both facially and as-applied) under the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

As the Court explained, “[t]o prevail on a facial challenge, Plaintiffs must show that either no set of circumstances exists under which the law would be valid or that the statute lacks any plainly legitimate sweep.” That high bar was met by the Plaintiffs’ legal team. The decision explained that “Defendants [United States Attorney General Eric Holder and BATFE director B. Todd Jones] fail[ed] to provide reasonably current figures to show the federal interstate handgun sale ban is narrowly tailored.”

Even though the Court found that strict scrutiny was the proper standard of review for the type of burden on Constitutionally-protected conduct imposed by the challenged laws (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922 (b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a)), it also noted that the law failed even the relatively-deferential intermediate scrutiny test.

The United States, the Court held, has been enforcing “a regime that is not substantially related to the Government’s stated goal” [of public safety]. Even under intermediate scrutiny, “there must be an indication that the regulation will alleviate the asserted harm to a material degree.” But “Defendants [] failed to carry their burden to show how the federal interstate handgun transfer ban alleviates, in a material way, the problem of prohibited persons obtaining handguns simply by crossing state lines and depriving states of notice that they have under the amended version of the 1968 Gun Control Act.” Accordingly, the laws were declared unconstitutional and enjoined from enforcement.

The lawsuit, captioned Fredric Russell Mance, Jr. et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. and B. Todd Jones, was backed by Citizens’ Commitee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, one of the Bellevue, WA-based civil rights groups led by Alan Gottlieb. CCRKBA was also a plaintiff in the case, which will likely be appealed by the government to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Mance trial court docket can be viewed here."



https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/affiliates/ccrkba/federal-interstate-handgun-sales-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/

 You're welcome, they basically copied NJ's state ban word for word except for magazine capacity, and pre-ban possession

Seriously?   e=MC2   B00Bi3s   192.168.152.44   867-5309

 

correct

As long as felons are banned from military service. draft, and leo.

Yes, but it has to be a gun store in northern texas.

I think that's what it says.



When does this happen? I need to expand my scorpion search

There's a provision in Federal law that exempts LE from the NFA in the course of their duties; that was the basis for that ruling, probably applied in a way the original intent of the legislation didn't anticipate.

Is it any wonder that all of MS Arfcommers have Nolo on speed dial?  

+1

Oh, stop being so modest.

(Maybe you should use giant bolded text...)

Did they get their department to buy them and then take them home?





 

Quote History

Quoted:


This is NOT my case!

View Quote

The ATF did the same thing after some circuits ruled that the NFA doesn't apply to police after they heard cases of police officers in possession of illegal NFA weapons. Drew Peterson was one of the cases.

Woot?

Good, but I'm sure it's not done

That may be, but does the provision extend to personal ownership outside the course of their duties?  And don't give me that tired old  "always on duty" bullshit.

I didn't even know this was happening.  Wow.  Just wow.  And strict scrutiny.  Wholyeee fuck.

No it means people in wa state could go over to oregon and buy handguns at gun stores

 

That's some funny shit right there! I concur.

Well congratulations on winning it for us anyways, Nolo.

Glad to see this:




 

I think the State Police tighted up their agency regulations.



There is no "huge can of worms" for the BATFE.  The issue with the three Illinois State troopers and their dentist buddy was that their agencies (I think the dentist was some sort of reserve something) didn't know they had these machine guns and didn't have department policies for individual officers to buy machine guns or other NFA items on letterhedad - the troopers and the dentist were really just trying to get around 922(o) and have machine gun toys.



As I remember, when the shitstorm broke it was the ISP that wanted their guts for garters.



I'll bet its clearly spelled out as a absolute no-no now.

A court ruling is a bit different than a change of opinion by the ATF.

I don't see how it would be. Hopefully someone can educate me how it would. Cuz FUCK Bloomberg.

But, i594 restricts WA residents from selling/transferring a firearm to another resident without a background check being done by an FFL. This if upheld would allow me to buy a handgun in Oregon from an FFL, but it would still be illegal to sell it to a WA resident with out a BGC.

While that part is true, receiving in NH also means NOT paying ME sales tax.

They still drive it over the line? My dad bought one back when I was a kid and they did that.

I rost at your astute legal analysis.  You win an internet for the day!  

As someone who lives on a border, (Kentucky and Ohio) I've always thought this is the stupidest law ever written. I live in Ohio and work in Kentucky. The largest town, closest to me is in Kentucky. The closest hospital is in Kentucky. Most shopping for nearly any product is in Kentucky. I can legally buy any of those products in Kentucky, except handguns. How does this even make sense? I can only hope this stupidity is struck down.

So does that mean I could legally go to Nevada get a California off-list pistol and bring it home?

No.