User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 9:24:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I understand correctly, Washington's retarded new law is in deep shit... Nick 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. But let's say you went to your parents house for a while to take care of dad for some reason. He lives one state away. While you are there, you find a gun you really like. It's not in current production but not a C&R (for instance, a pre-lock S&W 686). This case says that you should be able to purchase that firearm, on the spot, so long as it is legal in your home state and you comply with the purchase requirements of your home state (FOID, B.G., etc). Previously, you would have had to have had that gun bought there, then shipped to a FFL in your home state, where you would then have to drive back and retrieve, while paying yet another sum of money for the transfer. Now, I realize that this means that any handgun purchased in accordance with this ruling is now a legal purchase...doesn't have to be just not in current production model stuff....but it kind of better outlines why it would be advantageous to want to purchase a particular item on the spot rather than go through a lot of hassle for something that might not mean that much to you (and therefore don't purchase, depriving the gun dealer of a sale, and yourself of the property you would have bought otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 9:59:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So does that mean I could legally go to Nevada get a California off-list pistol and bring it home? Is Nevada in the Federal judicial District of North Texas and would the purchase violate California law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 10:01:28 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But let's say you went to your parents house for a while to take care of dad for some reason. He lives one state away. While you are there, you find a gun you really like. It's not in current production but not a C&R (for instance, a pre-lock S&W 686). This case says that you should be able to purchase that firearm, on the spot, so long as it is legal in your home state and you comply with the purchase requirements of your home state (FOID, B.G., etc). Previously, you would have had to have had that gun bought there, then shipped to a FFL in your home state, where you would then have to drive back and retrieve, while paying yet another sum of money for the transfer. Now, I realize that this means that any handgun purchased in accordance with this ruling is now a legal purchase...doesn't have to be just not in current production model stuff....but it kind of better outlines why it would be advantageous to want to purchase a particular item on the spot rather than go through a lot of hassle for something that might not mean that much to you (and therefore don't purchase, depriving the gun dealer of a sale, and yourself of the property you would have bought otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If I understand correctly, Washington's retarded new law is in deep shit... Nick 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. But let's say you went to your parents house for a while to take care of dad for some reason. He lives one state away. While you are there, you find a gun you really like. It's not in current production but not a C&R (for instance, a pre-lock S&W 686). This case says that you should be able to purchase that firearm, on the spot, so long as it is legal in your home state and you comply with the purchase requirements of your home state (FOID, B.G., etc). Previously, you would have had to have had that gun bought there, then shipped to a FFL in your home state, where you would then have to drive back and retrieve, while paying yet another sum of money for the transfer. Now, I realize that this means that any handgun purchased in accordance with this ruling is now a legal purchase...doesn't have to be just not in current production model stuff....but it kind of better outlines why it would be advantageous to want to purchase a particular item on the spot rather than go through a lot of hassle for something that might not mean that much to you (and therefore don't purchase, depriving the gun dealer of a sale, and yourself of the property you would have bought otherwise. Only in the Federal judicial District of North Texas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 10:03:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Think this will be appealed or just let stand in the district it's in? They may even get a stay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 10:17:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is NOT my case! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is it any wonder that all of MS Arfcommers have Nolo on speed dial?  This is NOT my case! Not my point. The point is, you keep up with this shit and and can go all quoting case law 'n precedent 'n shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 10:45:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They'll appeal. They play with our money, not theirs. Of course, they may be concerned about elevating it and losing across the country, not just the 5th circuit. They may even get a stay. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Think this will be appealed or just let stand in the district it's in? They may even get a stay. The DoJ has strategically refused to appeal on previous losses when it has figured it was better than risking a greater loss - see United States vs Rock Island Armory, Inc. A loss in the 8th US. District would have put them in a position where they would have to risk arguing 922(o) in front of SCOTUS, so they cut their losses and didn't risk losing the entire game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 11:34:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Lots of confusion in this thread and the inability of people to read a few posts above to answer their questions. In light of the fact that people can't read, SOMEONE PLEASE INFORM KORY WATKINS THAT THIS DECISION MAKES IT LEGAL FOR HIM TO OPEN CARRY A PISTOL IN FRONT OF A TEXAS STATE POLICE STATION.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 11:38:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lots of confusion in this thread and the inability of people to read a few posts above to answer their questions. In light of the fact that people can't read, SOMEONE PLEASE INFORM KORY WATKINS THAT THIS DECISION MAKES IT LEGAL FOR HIM TO OPEN CARRY A PISTOL IN FRONT OF A TEXAS STATE POLICE STATION. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 11:52:44 PM EDT
[#9]
In all seriousness, I will be in the jurisdiction of that District on Friday, staying for a long weekend. Any FFLs in the DFW area want to sell a pistol to an out of state resident who is not prohibited and can purchase handguns in his home state of CT?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 12:16:43 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If this holds up can I buy online and have it shipped to the house? Curio and Relic handgun w/ C&R license? Sure |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 1:29:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is Nevada in the Federal judicial District of North Texas and would the purchase violate California law? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So does that mean I could legally go to Nevada get a California off-list pistol and bring it home? Is Nevada in the Federal judicial District of North Texas and would the purchase violate California law? Well, I mean if the verdict becomes federally recognized. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 1:30:33 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only in the Federal judicial District of North Texas. God damn it. Fucking Texas and their blue state leftist bullshit again. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 1:34:50 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The DoJ has strategically refused to appeal on previous losses when it has figured it was better than risking a greater loss - see United States vs Rock Island Armory, Inc. A loss in the 8th US. District would have put them in a position where they would have to risk arguing 922(o) in front of SCOTUS, so they cut their losses and didn't risk losing the entire game. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Think this will be appealed or just let stand in the district it's in? They may even get a stay. The DoJ has strategically refused to appeal on previous losses when it has figured it was better than risking a greater loss - see United States vs Rock Island Armory, Inc. A loss in the 8th US. District would have put them in a position where they would have to risk arguing 922(o) in front of SCOTUS, so they cut their losses and didn't risk losing the entire game. I wonder what that means for Nolo's case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 1:35:22 AM EDT
[#14]
I was glad to see they argued the Gun Control Act of 1968 case was deemed outdated in its interstate purchase ban with regards to the 'historically recent' implementation of the NICS/PICS. I think that makes for a very compelling argument. I like that the Court noted that there were only two notable cases where the system had failed on a measurable scale, but even that was considered insignificant.
If the Defense cannot produce a compelling argument that these checks fail in the prohibition of firearm sales to dangerous individuals, will they have a leg to stand on when presented to the higher courts? I guess my only worry is that the issue of legal standing and the 'considerable' cost/delay of obtaining the handgun will be viewed differently in the higher courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 1:39:15 AM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 2:13:49 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is NOT my case! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is it any wonder that all of MS Arfcommers have Nolo on speed dial? This is NOT my case! I think this is the third time you have said exactly this. People get so excited when Holder gets smacked down, they assume that you are responsible for the smackdown. You are known here so it is assumed that you do all the 2A litigation. haha 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 3:02:07 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was glad to see they argued the Gun Control Act of 1968 case was deemed outdated in its interstate purchase ban with regards to the 'historically recent' implementation of the NICS/PICS. I think that makes for a very compelling argument. I like that the Court noted that there were only two notable cases where the system had failed on a measurable scale, but even that was considered insignificant. If the Defense cannot produce a compelling argument that these checks fail in the prohibition of firearm sales to dangerous individuals, will they have a leg to stand on when presented to the higher courts? I guess my only worry is that the issue of legal standing and the 'considerable' cost/delay of obtaining the handgun will be viewed differently in the higher courts. For that matter how could they possibly argue that NICS is ineffective and then turn around insist that it remain in place as the authoritative BG check database that is the only thing keeping evil guns out of the hands of criminals? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 7:28:11 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I mean if the verdict becomes federally recognized. Sorry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So does that mean I could legally go to Nevada get a California off-list pistol and bring it home? Is Nevada in the Federal judicial District of North Texas and would the purchase violate California law? Well, I mean if the verdict becomes federally recognized. Sorry. The answer is still No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 7:34:48 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks to me that the legal provision requiring handguns to be shipped to an FFL in state of residence is no more. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What the fuck are we reading? Looks to me that the legal provision requiring handguns to be shipped to an FFL in state of residence is no more. Ummm---no |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 7:37:40 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice. Wonder how many of the "boo Texas" shit talkers from the OC thread(s) will show their face in here. Here I am..........fuck Texas |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 7:43:21 AM EDT
[#21]
Tag for follow up after the coffee kicks in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 7:55:25 AM EDT
[#22]
If the defendants ( ATF and DOJ ) are enjoined from enforcing the law by court order, then how can the law be enforced outside the courts jurisdiction?
How can federal law apply in one place but not in another? What happened to the equal application of law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 7:58:56 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
for the TL;DR crowd: FFL dealer sues because he can't transfer a handgun direct to residents of District of Columbia who can legally posses a gun in DC. "Because the Hansons could not immediately take possession, they declined to complete the transaction with Mance." So dealer lost business and sues for relief from the Federal Handgun Transfer Ban. "Accordingly, the Court DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a) areUNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing these provisions. The Court will issue its final judgment separately." The beauty of this is that the case started in Fall of 2014 and already has findings less than 6 months later. Oh that we could only hope that the Trust cases are as fast and successful. 
Nolo, thanks for your work keeping us up to date on all things 2A legal. Every time a part of 922 is struck down the tide turns stronger in our favor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 8:00:18 AM EDT
[#24]
a plaintiff needs to get in front of that same judge next week with this argument:
1) i am a licensed NFA dealer. recently i had someone come to my store looking for full auto m-16. 2) although colt still makes them, atf won't register them as transferable, either because of hughes or internal regulation policy. because of this policy i don't have any in stock. 3) i lost business and therefore have standing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 8:11:44 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What the fuck are we reading? Jibberish in Legalese. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 8:37:25 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lots of confusion in this thread and the inability of people to read a few posts above to answer their questions. In light of the fact that people can't read, SOMEONE PLEASE INFORM KORY WATKINS THAT THIS DECISION MAKES IT LEGAL FOR HIM TO OPEN CARRY A PISTOL IN FRONT OF A TEXAS STATE POLICE STATION.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 9:29:04 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did they get their department to buy them and then take them home? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
iirc it did if you have the proper documentation etc...I could get an SBR as an LEO in AL with the proper letters and tax forms when SBR's were banned by state law. These guys had full auto M-16's they obtained without doing that. Did they get their department to buy them and then take them home? I know one of them for sure got his third party. I don't recall about the other two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 9:31:43 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, Illinois. Ruled that NFA rules do not apply to individual LEO's if they use the items in the course of their duties. ie three IL State Troopers used fraudulently obtained full auto M-16's, BATF charged them with it and the court tossed it. The feds did not appeal the rulings. Same with Drew Peterson and his unregistered SBR, the DA filed charges three times and all three times the judge dismissed it because he used the SBR in the course of his duties. iirc the judge even warned the prosecutor if he filed charges again he would be charged with malicious prosecution. Thanks! Do you remember any specifics in the rulings regarding possession when they retire from or lose their jobs? That seems like it should be a huge can of worms for the ATF. It did not address that issue. Just so long as the officers could prove the item was used in the course of their duties the law does not apply to them. 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. I remember something about they got two of the machine guns on letter heads that the agency did not know about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 9:32:39 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only in the Federal judicial District of North Texas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I understand correctly, Washington's retarded new law is in deep shit... Nick 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. But let's say you went to your parents house for a while to take care of dad for some reason. He lives one state away. While you are there, you find a gun you really like. It's not in current production but not a C&R (for instance, a pre-lock S&W 686). This case says that you should be able to purchase that firearm, on the spot, so long as it is legal in your home state and you comply with the purchase requirements of your home state (FOID, B.G., etc). Previously, you would have had to have had that gun bought there, then shipped to a FFL in your home state, where you would then have to drive back and retrieve, while paying yet another sum of money for the transfer. Now, I realize that this means that any handgun purchased in accordance with this ruling is now a legal purchase...doesn't have to be just not in current production model stuff....but it kind of better outlines why it would be advantageous to want to purchase a particular item on the spot rather than go through a lot of hassle for something that might not mean that much to you (and therefore don't purchase, depriving the gun dealer of a sale, and yourself of the property you would have bought otherwise. Only in the Federal judicial District of North Texas. 1) That's why I included several references to "in accordance with" 2) I'm more excited about the precedent/standing than I am about this particular ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 10:03:17 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder what that means for Nolo's case. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Think this will be appealed or just let stand in the district it's in? They may even get a stay. The DoJ has strategically refused to appeal on previous losses when it has figured it was better than risking a greater loss - see United States vs Rock Island Armory, Inc. A loss in the 8th US. District would have put them in a position where they would have to risk arguing 922(o) in front of SCOTUS, so they cut their losses and didn't risk losing the entire game. I wonder what that means for Nolo's case. It means that if he's successful in two Districts in two separate Circuits, DoJ might not appeal, making the rulings only binding in those separate Districts in two seperate Circuits. The ideal situation is to lose one and appeal it to the appropriate Circuit, while winning one that DoJ appeals in the other Circuit, then win in one Circuit and lose in the other - then take it to SCOTUS - who generally (but not always) take up cases where Circuits have held differently. Obviously, there is the possibility of a crushing defeat (loss in the two different Circuits' Districts and / or loss in both Circuits and / or SCOTUS refusal to hear the case). And no guarantee that SCOTUS will even grant certiorai even where Circuits disagree. If the first (successful in two Districts in two separate Circuits) comes to pass, it would be the basis for multiple equal protection lawsuits in multiple Federal judicial Districts until something broke loose. A very expensive road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 10:05:02 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the defendants ( ATF and DOJ ) are enjoined from enforcing the law by court order, then how can the law be enforced outside the courts jurisdiction? How can federal law apply in one place but not in another? What happened to the equal application of law? Happens all the time. That's why cases go to SCOTUS. Sometimes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 10:11:14 AM EDT
[#32]
It would be great to see this applied universally. I would love to be able to buy a gun on vacation somewhere especially in a state with no sales tax!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 11:50:24 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously? e=MC2 B00Bi3s 192.168.152.44 867-5309 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate trying to read legal crap. This post pursuant to § 9990(b)(3)(6-2)(e=MC2) and 2732 C.F.R.D.G. § 47248.92349(a)(B00Bi3s) for the aforementioned motion by the pursuant body of the decree of the relevance to the gonad juice of the §8762387(a)(b)(Darmok and Gelad at Tenagra) for the §(68763.3298732.363) and §(192.168.152.44) and §(867-5309). Every fucking law ever written should have a sentence at the top that says "This basically says blah blah blah"   NERDS So, Holder and b. Todd Jones = Shaka, when the walls fell. ETA: Accidentally pasted my reply inside the quote. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 11:53:44 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it means people in wa state could go over to oregon and buy handguns at gun stores Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So ordering a pistol from AIM Surplus could be shipped to my door? Nope, different district court. It means that people from Mississippi or Louisiana can go to the Northern District of Texas and buy handguns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 12:05:34 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope, different district court. It means that people from Mississippi can go to the Northern District of Texas and buy handguns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So ordering a pistol from AIM Surplus could be shipped to my door? Nope, different district court. It means that people from Mississippi can go to the Northern District of Texas and buy handguns. This. That said, ATF has a gazillion and one legitimate ways to screw with a licensee even if the licensee is on the right side of the law, so I don't expect many in that district will sell handguns to anyone who isn't a TX resident. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 12:12:27 PM EDT
[#36]
While this is exciting what I'd really like would be to fill out a 4473 online and have guns shipped straight to me. I don't know what the difference is whether it's in person or online as long as the form is filled out and the background check done
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 12:25:02 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope, different district court. It means that people from Mississippi or Louisiana can go to the Northern District of Texas and buy handguns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So ordering a pistol from AIM Surplus could be shipped to my door? Nope, different district court. It means that people from Mississippi or Louisiana can go to the Northern District of Texas and buy handguns. It depends on what happens next. As applied challenge: As of right now, that FFL in Texas can sell a pistol to the residents of DC, and the DC residents can buy a pistol from that FFL. Facial: All FFLs in Northern District of Texas can sell pistols to out of state residents and out of state residents can buy pistols from FFLs in Northern District of Texas. it does NOT mean that anyone in any other district can buy or sell to nonresidents. When the fifth circuit rules, that opinion will only be binding in the fifth circuit (LA, MS, TX) and no other circuit or district. I would expect a stay of the decision pending appeal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 12:27:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It depends on what happens next. As applied challenge: As of right now, that FFL in Texas can sell a pistol to the residents of DC, and the DC residents can buy a pistol from that FFL. Facial: All FFLs in Northern District of Texas can sell pistols to out of state residents and out of state residents can buy pistols from FFLs in Northern District of Texas. it does NOT mean that anyone in any other district can buy or sell to nonresidents. When the fifth circuit rules, that opinion will only be binding in the fifth circuit (LA, MS, TX) and no other circuit or district. I would expect a stay of the decision pending appeal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So ordering a pistol from AIM Surplus could be shipped to my door? Nope, different district court. It means that people from Mississippi or Louisiana can go to the Northern District of Texas and buy handguns. It depends on what happens next. As applied challenge: As of right now, that FFL in Texas can sell a pistol to the residents of DC, and the DC residents can buy a pistol from that FFL. Facial: All FFLs in Northern District of Texas can sell pistols to out of state residents and out of state residents can buy pistols from FFLs in Northern District of Texas. it does NOT mean that anyone in any other district can buy or sell to nonresidents. When the fifth circuit rules, that opinion will only be binding in the fifth circuit (LA, MS, TX) and no other circuit or district. I would expect a stay of the decision pending appeal. If they appeal. As I understand it an appeal could go bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 12:59:42 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, only instate FFL's are restricted on what they can sell in MA, a quick trip to RI will solve that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you live in a ban state that dictates which handguns you can/can't buy, this looks like a solution to that problem - provided you're willing to do a bit of travel. Yep, only instate FFL's are restricted on what they can sell in MA, a quick trip to RI will solve that. But is there not MA State laws covering what you can possess, eg mag capacity >10 rounds etc.? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 1:06:04 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It depends on what happens next. As applied challenge: As of right now, that FFL in Texas can sell a pistol to the residents of DC, and the DC residents can buy a pistol from that FFL. Facial: All FFLs in Northern District of Texas can sell pistols to out of state residents and out of state residents can buy pistols from FFLs in Northern District of Texas. it does NOT mean that anyone in any other district can buy or sell to nonresidents. When the fifth circuit rules, that opinion will only be binding in the fifth circuit (LA, MS, TX) and no other circuit or district. I would expect a stay of the decision pending appeal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So ordering a pistol from AIM Surplus could be shipped to my door? Nope, different district court. It means that people from Mississippi or Louisiana can go to the Northern District of Texas and buy handguns. It depends on what happens next. As applied challenge: As of right now, that FFL in Texas can sell a pistol to the residents of DC, and the DC residents can buy a pistol from that FFL. Facial: All FFLs in Northern District of Texas can sell pistols to out of state residents and out of state residents can buy pistols from FFLs in Northern District of Texas. it does NOT mean that anyone in any other district can buy or sell to nonresidents. When the fifth circuit rules, that opinion will only be binding in the fifth circuit (LA, MS, TX) and no other circuit or district. I would expect a stay of the decision pending appeal. And I believe that the unique situation vis-a-vis the inability to buy a pistol in DC was a significant factor. A similar suit for residents of Oklahoma that wanted to buy a pistol in Dallas might not have faired as well (in other words, Alan Gura had a perfect setup). The Hansons were prevented from reasonably buying a gun in their 'state' of residence (DC) because the only FFL in DC doesn't stock or special order and only transfers, thus they were required to buy out of 'state' (DC) and required to have it shipped and transfered. So the combined costs and requirements over and above filling out a 4473 and handing over money were unreasonable (and the judge agreed). Where else would this be the case? In every other state, residents can buy a pistol there - even though there may be legal hoops (Illinois FOID card; NYS pistol permit; etc.). Similar suits for DC residents in other Federal judical Districts would be the logical next step. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 2:15:51 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It depends on what happens next. As applied challenge: As of right now, that FFL in Texas can sell a pistol to the residents of DC, and the DC residents can buy a pistol from that FFL. Facial: All FFLs in Northern District of Texas can sell pistols to out of state residents and out of state residents can buy pistols from FFLs in Northern District of Texas. it does NOT mean that anyone in any other district can buy or sell to nonresidents. When the fifth circuit rules, that opinion will only be binding in the fifth circuit (LA, MS, TX) and no other circuit or district. I would expect a stay of the decision pending appeal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So ordering a pistol from AIM Surplus could be shipped to my door? Nope, different district court. It means that people from Mississippi or Louisiana can go to the Northern District of Texas and buy handguns. It depends on what happens next. As applied challenge: As of right now, that FFL in Texas can sell a pistol to the residents of DC, and the DC residents can buy a pistol from that FFL. Facial: All FFLs in Northern District of Texas can sell pistols to out of state residents and out of state residents can buy pistols from FFLs in Northern District of Texas. it does NOT mean that anyone in any other district can buy or sell to nonresidents. When the fifth circuit rules, that opinion will only be binding in the fifth circuit (LA, MS, TX) and no other circuit or district. I would expect a stay of the decision pending appeal. So, for this decision to go nationwide, similar cases have to be tried in (several) different districts, and eventually appealed to SCOTUS, along the lines of the course you are proceeding with the NFA stuff.? Is Gura, and/or his group heading in this direction? Are you ?  If I were rich, and/or connected, I would love to be a test case for some of this stuff. Alas, I cannot even afford a megabucks ticket......... Keep up the good work, Nolo. Would love to tip a cold one with you, some day....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 2:58:00 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But is there not MA State laws covering what you can possess, eg mag capacity >10 rounds etc.? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you live in a ban state that dictates which handguns you can/can't buy, this looks like a solution to that problem - provided you're willing to do a bit of travel. Yep, only instate FFL's are restricted on what they can sell in MA, a quick trip to RI will solve that. But is there not MA State laws covering what you can possess, eg mag capacity >10 rounds etc.? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 3:04:09 PM EDT
[#43]
just saw this and knew it'd already be on arfcom. Thanks Nolo
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 3:14:29 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the defendants ( ATF and DOJ ) are enjoined from enforcing the law by court order, then how can the law be enforced outside the courts jurisdiction? How can federal law apply in one place but not in another? What happened to the equal application of law? Great theory in theory, and makes me go  too, but I suppose this method provides a dampening effect so we don't get radical swings in law everywhere. Can you imagine the Northern District of CA loony rulings (the most overturned court in the country) being applied nation-wide as soon as they're made?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 3:21:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great theory in theory, and makes me go too, but I suppose this method provides a dampening effect so we don't get radical swings in law everywhere. Can you imagine the Northern District of CA loony rulings (the most overturned court in the country) being applied nation-wide as soon as they're made?Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If the defendants ( ATF and DOJ ) are enjoined from enforcing the law by court order, then how can the law be enforced outside the courts jurisdiction? How can federal law apply in one place but not in another? What happened to the equal application of law? Great theory in theory, and makes me go too, but I suppose this method provides a dampening effect so we don't get radical swings in law everywhere. Can you imagine the Northern District of CA loony rulings (the most overturned court in the country) being applied nation-wide as soon as they're made?This. Lets see how this plays out In 1986 the NRA and some in Congress (Harold Volkmer) tried to get interstate handgun sales legal. It failed due to Northeastern Democrats. Has buying shotguns interstate (since 1986) made crime soar in states that forbid it? Remember the FOPA of 1986 legalized the buying of shotguns and rifles interstate and the world did not collapse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 3:43:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they appeal. As I understand it an appeal could go bad. While I agree, my understanding is that DoJ doesn't have a choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 3:45:05 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I agree, my understanding is that DoJ doesn't have a choice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If they appeal. As I understand it an appeal could go bad. While I agree, my understanding is that DoJ doesn't have a choice. How can appeal go bad? For the DOJ or gun owners? For gun owners isn't "status quo" the worst we can expect? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 5:07:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How can appeal go bad? For the DOJ or gun owners? For gun owners isn't "status quo" the worst we can expect? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they appeal. As I understand it an appeal could go bad. While I agree, my understanding is that DoJ doesn't have a choice. How can appeal go bad? For the DOJ or gun owners? For gun owners isn't "status quo" the worst we can expect? For DoJ/FedGov. For gun owners having it struck downmeans status quo. For DoJ having it upheld is a substantial blow to GCA 1968. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 5:11:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In before morons start writing ATF inquiring if it is ok to ship as outlined in the lawsuit. Watch it go under like the SiG Brace issue. 1 a day till I see results! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 5:22:51 PM EDT
[#50]
A loss for gun owners at the 5th circuit means appeal to the SCOTUS. However the SCOTUS may elect not to hear the case thus letting the 5th circuit ruling stand.
In that event we would need a similar case in another federal circuit court to rule in favor to the gun owners thus creating a split between 2 different federal circuits. This type of split is hard for the SCOTUS to turn away as it pretty much has to resolve the conflict in the name of equal protection of the law. It's not grunted but it is very hard for the SCOTUS to ignore a split between circuit courts. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
