User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:49:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so.. Eric Dickholder got legally bitch slapped? I'm good with that. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What the fuck are we reading? This is all you need to know: the Court finds thatDefendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be and is hereby
DENIED . For the reasons that follow,Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED , and Defendants’ Motion for SummaryJudgment is DENIED Eric Holder's (Defendant) request to dismiss this lawsuit has been DENIED, and the plaintiffs who sued him over gun rights had their motion granted. so.. Eric Dickholder got legally bitch slapped? I'm good with that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:49:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, what? Is there a district in which that has been ruled ok? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. Like they did with the transfer of full-auto weapons to individual LEO's without having to register them? Wait, what? Is there a district in which that has been ruled ok? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:50:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Think this will be appealed or just let stand in the district it's in? Of course it will be appealed Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:51:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Court just means "otherwise lawful." Only the federal ban on handgun sales to non-residents was at issue. Still must comply with state laws until those are challenged. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
tl;dr version. Court applied strict scrutiny to infringements upon the Second Amendment. FFL's can transfer handguns to out-of-state residents so long as they comply with the other rules (in person meeting, etc.) which apply to rifles and shotguns. Hmmm...How does that apply to the "comply with the laws of the other state" when the laws are something like Maryland's fingerprints, etc. I'm guessing it will stay, but it will still make things interesting. Assuming it stands. ETA: Well well well - looks like that is void as well, as it's contained in the the articles voided. The Court just means "otherwise lawful." Only the federal ban on handgun sales to non-residents was at issue. Still must comply with state laws until those are challenged. Nope - I looked it up, and the requirement to comply with the state laws of the buyer are included in the parts declared unconstitutional. Assuming this were to go forward it would only mean that I could buy and Evil Assault Rifle in VA and bring it back to Maryland, and the gun store wouldn't get in trouble from the ATF. I would still be committing a crime in Maryland. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:55:09 PM EDT
[#5]
So... does this mean I could go to Oregon and buy non-roster handguns once this is actually implemented? Because that would be fucking awesome.
This case could get a whole lot of bullshit in this state struck down, the CA Handgun Roster not least among them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:55:11 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is all you need to know: Eric Holder's (Defendant) request to dismiss this lawsuit has been DENIED, and the plaintiffs who sued him over gun rights had their motion granted. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What the fuck are we reading? This is all you need to know: the Court finds thatDefendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be and is hereby DENIED . For the reasons that follow,Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED , and Defendants’ Motion for SummaryJudgment is DENIED Eric Holder's (Defendant) request to dismiss this lawsuit has been DENIED, and the plaintiffs who sued him over gun rights had their motion granted. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:57:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If these same lines of thought apply, it most definitely does- "items specifically protected by the Constitution can be restricted only by evidence, and not just asserted" & "the government cannot rely on speculation or conjecture to support government interest" Assertion, speculation & conjecture... That's all they've got. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
awesome..Nolo, does this help on your suit? I believe it does. If these same lines of thought apply, it most definitely does- "items specifically protected by the Constitution can be restricted only by evidence, and not just asserted" & "the government cannot rely on speculation or conjecture to support government interest" Assertion, speculation & conjecture... That's all they've got. Unless of course you are the 3rd Circuit and hearing Drake vs. NJ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:01:48 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:02:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nice. Wonder how many of the "boo Texas" shit talkers from the OC thread(s) will show their face in here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:02:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Usually those states have an import ban on those guns and require registration, in that case you wouldn't be able to legally possess it and I bet most FFL's won't sell to you. It's a nice thought though and this ruling will certainly help arguments against banning the sale and import of guns banned by an arbitrary list, like CA. 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. Usually those states have an import ban on those guns and require registration, in that case you wouldn't be able to legally possess it and I bet most FFL's won't sell to you. It's a nice thought though and this ruling will certainly help arguments against banning the sale and import of guns banned by an arbitrary list, like CA. This looks to be a way around owning a prohibited weapon in NJ. There is no registration surprisingly. Possession in NJ would be illegal but you could buy it and store it elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:05:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But I could in theory order from an individual in the subject district and get direct delivery to my home address, no? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I can now go to Cabela's in KC and walk out with a pistol? If so, that's pretty sweet  If you can find a dealer to sell it to you. I have the suspicion local ATF agents are burning up the phones right now "strongly suggesting" that dealers stick to the old rules until an appeals court rules. No. This case was decided by a Northen District of Texas court, not the District of Kansas. Only applies there: http://www.fedbar.org/Image-Library/Public/Map-of-US-District-Courts-2000px.png But I could in theory order from an individual in the subject district and get direct delivery to my home address, no? Feels more likely you should go there instead of asking for it to be shipped. I don't think anyone would ship a prohibited weapon to NJ. But they could seel it to you at their place in TX. What you do after that is up to you. YMMV IANAL |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:05:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But I could in theory order from an individual in the subject district and get direct delivery to my home address, no? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I can now go to Cabela's in KC and walk out with a pistol? If so, that's pretty sweet If you can find a dealer to sell it to you. I have the suspicion local ATF agents are burning up the phones right now "strongly suggesting" that dealers stick to the old rules until an appeals court rules. No. This case was decided by a Northen District of Texas court, not the District of Kansas. Only applies there: http://www.fedbar.org/Image-Library/Public/Map-of-US-District-Courts-2000px.png But I could in theory order from an individual in the subject district and get direct delivery to my home address, no? The hardest thing for me to wrap my mind around regarding this decision is whether anyone living outside the district could do as you suggest. I would think that if you sued in N.D. Tex. then the gov't could simply move under Rule 12(b)(3) that venue is improper and that the case should be transferred to the federal district in which you reside. Image that you do what you propose and travel to north Texas, buy a pistol, and take it back home to Oregon. The federal government gets wind of this and sends federal agents to arrest you and then charge you with violation of the federal law in question here. That case would be brought before the D. Ore. and the N.D. Tex. decision here would be merely persuasive authority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:06:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This looks to be a way around owning a prohibited weapon in NJ. There is no registration surprisingly. Possession in NJ would be illegal but you could buy it and store it elsewhere. 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. Usually those states have an import ban on those guns and require registration, in that case you wouldn't be able to legally possess it and I bet most FFL's won't sell to you. It's a nice thought though and this ruling will certainly help arguments against banning the sale and import of guns banned by an arbitrary list, like CA. This looks to be a way around owning a prohibited weapon in NJ. There is no registration surprisingly. Possession in NJ would be illegal but you could buy it and store it elsewhere. There aren't too many handguns you can't own in NJ, really just AK and AR type pistols and similar. There are even some AR pistols that are legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:14:35 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:15:41 PM EDT
[#15]
If this holds up can I buy online and have it shipped to the house?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:16:20 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like they did with the transfer of full-auto weapons to individual LEO's without having to register them? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. Like they did with the transfer of full-auto weapons to individual LEO's without having to register them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:17:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If this holds up can I buy online and have it shipped to the house? No. This basically just makes handguns the same as long guns now, meaning you can cross state lines and buy one from a dealer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:19:02 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. This basically just makes handguns the same as long guns now, meaning you can cross state lines and buy one from a dealer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If this holds up can I buy online and have it shipped to the house? No. This basically just makes handguns the same as long guns now, meaning you can cross state lines and buy one from a dealer. Not entirely. This judge doesn't speak for every court in the nation. If you are arrested for violating the federal law, you will be charged and hauled before a federal court in your home state who can put this decision in the circular file. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:19:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Star Trek fan spotted Quote HistoryQuoted:
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" Star Trek fan spotted Kadar beneath mo moteh... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:21:19 PM EDT
[#20]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:22:02 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. Like they did with the transfer of full-auto weapons to individual LEO's without having to register them? Wait, what? Is there a district in which that has been ruled ok? 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. I need to get some low down dirty North Fl Sheriff to be my buddy! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:23:52 PM EDT
[#22]
If I understand correctly, Washington's retarded new law is in deep shit...
Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:26:10 PM EDT
[#23]
Another step. Excellent.
I love it when a plan comes together. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:26:57 PM EDT
[#24]
TL:DR crowd here is my take.
So now an open carry guy (who btw we dont like) can go to Wash Dc and buy a handgun and doing that makes Eric Holder look bad in the process and we like him less then we like the open carry activists, hence this is a good thing.........but it could still be overturned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:28:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TL:DR crowd here is my take. So now an open carry guy (who btw we dont like) can go to Wash Dc and buy a handgun and doing that makes Eric Holder look bad in the process and we like him less then we like the open carry activists, hence this is a good thing.........but it could still be overturned. Are you retarded? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:31:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice. Wonder how many of the "boo Texas" shit talkers from the OC thread(s) will show their face in here. boo texas shit talker here. what does this have to do with open carry tards? oh thats right, NOTHING. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:31:20 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. If you've ever seen the photos of the "unregistered SBR", you'll recognize that it had a pinned on muzzle device that was just cranked off which stripped off the threads. I have my doubts that said muzzle device removal was done by the accused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:31:55 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Holy Shit Snacks! I need to get some low down dirty North Fl Sheriff to be my buddy! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. Like they did with the transfer of full-auto weapons to individual LEO's without having to register them? Wait, what? Is there a district in which that has been ruled ok? 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. I need to get some low down dirty North Fl Sheriff to be my buddy! Since the ruling was not appealed it only applies to IL at this time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:32:11 PM EDT
[#29]
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. Six months does not matter to mr. The judge stomping part of 922 to death is key. May the same take place when Nolo argues his 922.o case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:32:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you've ever seen the photos of the "unregistered SBR", you'll recognize that it had a pinned on muzzle device that was just cranked off which stripped off the threads. I have my doubts that said muzzle device removal was done by the accused. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. If you've ever seen the photos of the "unregistered SBR", you'll recognize that it had a pinned on muzzle device that was just cranked off which stripped off the threads. I have my doubts that said muzzle device removal was done by the accused. I never saw close up pics of the threads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:34:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not entirely. This judge doesn't speak for every court in the nation. If you are arrested for violating the federal law, you will be charged and hauled before a federal court in your home state who can put this decision in the circular file. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If this holds up can I buy online and have it shipped to the house? No. This basically just makes handguns the same as long guns now, meaning you can cross state lines and buy one from a dealer. Not entirely. This judge doesn't speak for every court in the nation. If you are arrested for violating the federal law, you will be charged and hauled before a federal court in your home state who can put this decision in the circular file. Yes that's right. Guess I should have clarified that with a "...if you live in a certain part of Texas" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:35:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. Like they did with the transfer of full-auto weapons to individual LEO's without having to register them? Wait, what? Is there a district in which that has been ruled ok? 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. is that the same prosecutor that Peterson just got charged with putting the "hit" on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:35:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
is that the same prosecutor that Peterson just got charged with putting the "hit" on? Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. is that the same prosecutor that Peterson just got charged with putting the "hit" on? I don't know but I would assume it to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:36:45 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 Quote HistoryQuoted:
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" Missed it til highlighted in green. Trekies are unexpected source of amusement... My buddy and I hate that episode sooooo much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:39:26 PM EDT
[#35]
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. Do you even law, brah? The SiG brace is an issue of regulatory interpretation by the agency that makes the regulations to enforce the law - the BATFE doesn't make laws. Right now, in the Federal judicial district of North Texas, 18 USC §a 922(n out-of-state purchaser can buy a handgun (until this ruling is stayed pending appeal by the DoJ - if it is). If DoJ appeals it to the Fifth US Circuit (the Circuit that has jurisdiction) and the Fifth US Circuit upholds this ruling, then it will be legal anywhere in the Fifth US District for a person to buy a handgun in another state (subject to the laws of that state). If DoJ appeals to the SCOTUS - or another Federal Circuit has ruled otherwise and SCOTUS grants / issues a writ of certiorari and takes the case up, then if SCOTUS upholds the orginal ruling that part of the GCA '68 as amended is out everywhere. The BATFE doesn't get to make a new interpretation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:40:08 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm kind of curious if the government will leave it alone and let it just apply to that district instead of risking an appeal loss. Like they did with the transfer of full-auto weapons to individual LEO's without having to register them? Wait, what? Is there a district in which that has been ruled ok? 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. There was another Illinois case, I think it was US vs Rock Island Armory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 4:44:11 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems like it, as long as it is legal for you to possess the firearm in your home state. Now, I wouldn't try that shit if I were in St. Louis and lived in Crook County Illinois. Or be a Kalifornistinian, in Nevada or Arizona and buy a gun there. You're not bringing that shit back legally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I can now go to Cabela's in KC and walk out with a pistol? If so, that's pretty sweet Seems like it, as long as it is legal for you to possess the firearm in your home state. Now, I wouldn't try that shit if I were in St. Louis and lived in Crook County Illinois. Or be a Kalifornistinian, in Nevada or Arizona and buy a gun there. You're not bringing that shit back legally. Especially since CA enacted a law, effective 1/1/2015 IIRC, that requires CA residents to have out-of-state firearm purchases shipped to an in-state FFL and DROS'd there before they can take possession. Or something similar--I haven't read up on it at all (since my discretionary budget is shot )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:01:38 PM EDT
[#38]
But this does not mean we are back to mail order purchases of firearms.
The court did nothing to address, in fact the suit didn't even challenge, the requirements to:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:04:52 PM EDT
[#39]
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. This. Amen! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:14:06 PM EDT
[#40]
It would be nice to be able to walk into a gunshop in a different state and buy a handgun and not have to have it shipped! Hope it stands.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:15:27 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: tl;dr version. Court applied strict scrutiny to infringements upon the Second Amendment. FFL's can transfer handguns to out-of-state residents so long as they comply with the other rules (in person meeting, etc.) which apply to rifles and shotguns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:21:37 PM EDT
[#42]
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. What happens at the state level requiring shipping to an FFL? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:23:31 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be nice to be able to walk into a gunshop in a different state and buy a handgun and not have to have it shipped! Hope it stands. And pay sales tax? No thanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:24:55 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:36:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Thetruthaboutguns: BREAKING: Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban
In a ruling issued today, a Federal judge has declared that the longstanding ban on gun dealers selling handguns to residents in different states is not only unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but also violates other fair trade provisions of the United States Constitution. The full decision is available here, but from what I can tell this looks to be a major win for the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Louis Bonham, one of TTAG’s consulting lawyers, wrote the following analysis of the ruling:
The suit was brought by a Texas gun dealer, two District of Columbia residents, and the Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In what appears to have been a test case, the DC residents wished to purchase a handgun from the Texas dealer, but federal law prohibited them from doing so without having the Texas dealer ship the gun to DC’s only FFL, who would have charged them a $125 transfer fee. They then filed suit in federal court in the Northern District of Texas, arguing that the federal prohibition on direct sales of handguns by FFL’s to out of state residents unconstitutionally violated their rights under the Second Amendment and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. After finding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the federal law, the court found that the residency restrictions of federal law were not “longstanding” (as opposed, e.g., to restrictions on the age of firearms purchasers that had been around for all of US history), but instead were of relatively recent origin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:49:08 PM EDT
[#46]
So does this mean I can buy a stripped lower at a gun store out of my home state now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:57:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So ordering a pistol from AIM Surplus could be shipped to my door? No. C&R with a C&R FFL... or antique....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:58:38 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And pay sales tax? No thanks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It would be nice to be able to walk into a gunshop in a different state and buy a handgun and not have to have it shipped! Hope it stands. And pay sales tax? No thanks. Hey you can spend your money here. Hell, I would even buy handguns in NH. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 5:58:54 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nice! I am headed to Colorado for a while and will likely purchase a handgun while I am there. This is good! Colorado, Texas? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 6:01:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Court just means "otherwise lawful." Only the federal ban on handgun sales to non-residents was at issue. Still must comply with state laws until those are challenged. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
tl;dr version. Court applied strict scrutiny to infringements upon the Second Amendment. FFL's can transfer handguns to out-of-state residents so long as they comply with the other rules (in person meeting, etc.) which apply to rifles and shotguns. Hmmm...How does that apply to the "comply with the laws of the other state" when the laws are something like Maryland's fingerprints, etc. I'm guessing it will stay, but it will still make things interesting. Assuming it stands. ETA: Well well well - looks like that is void as well, as it's contained in the the articles voided. The Court just means "otherwise lawful." Only the federal ban on handgun sales to non-residents was at issue. Still must comply with state laws until those are challenged. The buyer only needs to worry about that if they choose to leave texas with it. It is no longer a concern of the dealer. If the sale is legal in Texas they are good. |
|
|
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.
