Federal Judge Declares Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban Unconstitutional

[Bill of Rights]

Isn't there some exception for long guns in bordering states? Or am I thinking of something completely different?

\

Think of two parallel railroad tracks. One is private long gun sales; the other track is entitled FFL sales.

If private, cannot cross state lines, unless FFL involved.

If buying from FFL, can cross state lines.

Is that under federal law? I also seem to recall something about how some states allowed purchases in neighboring states. I'm thinking it was out west, so someone in Texas could go to New Mexico, buy a gun, and bring it back.

But, again, just because state law might allow something, doesn't mean federal law does, too.



Well, technically, yes. But in my experience with federal laws with national application, a circuit opinion on that law means 1 of 2 things: that interpretation is applied everywhere or a split develops that is resolved (one way or another) by SCOTUS.

For this example, from an enforcement angle, it would be a tricky logistical puzzle to allow those transactions in the 5th circuit while not allowing them elsewhere.

Federal and state. Federal used to allow between neighboring states if the states had a law allowing it. Now it is allowed in neighboring states, if the states don't have a law against it. It changed a couple years ago. IN used to have a law that allowed it between neighboring states, it has since been repealed.

^^This. Indiana had a law specifically allowing sale of long guns to Hoosiers in FFL dealers in neighboring states, mirroring a federal law that was declared unConstitutional a bunch of years ago, and thus, was only restricted because of state law. The state law was changed about 4 years ago, I think. Now, if in any other state, and the other state's law does not forbid, you may purchase a long gun in their FFL stores and bring it home with you.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

^^This. Indiana had a law specifically allowing sale of long guns to Hoosiers in FFL dealers in neighboring states, mirroring a federal law that was declared unConstitutional a bunch of years ago, and thus, was only restricted because of state law. The state law was changed about 4 years ago, I think. Now, if in any other state, and the other state's law does not forbid, you may purchase a long gun in their FFL stores and bring it home with you.

Blessings,
Bill

This with a word I messed up and didn't add. That word is non, it is allowed now in non-neighboring states if the laws of the state the purchase is made in and the laws of the state of residency of the purchaser don't prohibit it. And do you have a link to the decision that declared it unConstitutional? I would like to read it, it would add weight (much weight) to this decision. I thought it was an act of legislature that changed it. But it's quite possible I'm wrong.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

^^This. Indiana had a law specifically allowing sale of long guns to Hoosiers in FFL dealers in neighboring states, mirroring a federal law that was declared unConstitutional a bunch of years ago, and thus, was only restricted because of state law. The state law was changed about 4 years ago, I think. Now, if in any other state, and the other state's law does not forbid, you may purchase a long gun in their FFL stores and bring it home with you.

Blessings,
Bill

Ha! So I'm not crazy, I'm just out of date.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Ha! So I'm not crazy, I'm just out of date.

The two are not mutually exclusive you know...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

RE: purchasing firearms in the AAFES facilities in other states. I suspect that AAFES stores will be among the last to comply if this ruling is upheld, primarily because AAFES guidelines will either prohibit it, or because store employees won't know about it. I'm primarily basing this conclusion on my interactions with the gun shop folks at Ft. Knox, who didn't believe I could legally purchase a long-gun from their facility while not being a resident of Kentucky. Couldn't buy a firearm in the PX at Ft. Drum, NY because NY doesn't recognize IN LTCH, even though I was on Active Duty there at the time. I suspect BX/PX purchases of firearms will continue to be a snake's nest for the foreseeable future.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Feds ask for 60 day stay of this ruling: Motion for 60 Day Stay in Mance v Holder at Traction Control

 

[Huzrjim]

RE: purchasing firearms in the AAFES facilities in other states. I suspect that AAFES stores will be among the last to comply if this ruling is upheld, primarily because AAFES guidelines will either prohibit it, or because store employees won't know about it. I'm primarily basing this conclusion on my interactions with the gun shop folks at Ft. Knox, who didn't believe I could legally purchase a long-gun from their facility while not being a resident of Kentucky. Couldn't buy a firearm in the PX at Ft. Drum, NY because NY doesn't recognize IN LTCH, even though I was on Active Duty there at the time. I suspect BX/PX purchases of firearms will continue to be a snake's nest for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunate as some of the best deals I have seen on firearms have been at the MCX store in Norfolk, VA.

 

[jwh20]

Feds ask for 60 day stay of this ruling: Motion for 60 Day Stay in Mance v Holder at Traction Control

As I read the request it's basically: "Well we've been infringing on the people's rights this long, what is another 60 days?"

Hopefully the judge will tell Mr. Holder to go "F" himself.

 

[Alamo]

Stay is denied.
No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: Mance v. Holder - Government Requested Stay Denied

 

[T.Lex]

Hmmmm that's interesting. If they file the notice of appeal (which I almost a certainty), they can ask the appellate court for a stay. I suspect that will be granted.

But, there's a bit of an "off camera" (as opposed to in camera) conversation going on. Notice the gov't requested the stay based on the "inherent authority" of the court. That's the same theory that the defendant used in the SCOTUS oral argument to explain why a court can shepherd the sale of firearms by a criminal defendant. Generally, I'd say a trial court has more authority to issue a stay than to supervise a firearm transfer.

 

[spec4]

Can this mean you can buy a gun from any ffl in the country and have them ship it to you? That would be big!!!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Stay is denied.
No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: Mance v. Holder - Government Requested Stay Denied

 

[SteveM4A1]

Can this mean you can buy a gun from any ffl in the country and have them ship it to you? That would be big!!!

It appears so, but IANAL. I doubt many will be doing this anytime soon, but I hope so.

 

[THE BIG SITT]

It appears so, but IANAL. I doubt many will be doing this anytime soon, but I hope so.

Wow that would be awesome for individuals, but crushing for LGS. Why would anyone buy something in a LGS when you can get it online for cheaper (typically), avoid a transfer fee, and not have to pay tax?

 

[T.Lex]

Wow that would be awesome for individuals, but crushing for LGS. Why would anyone buy something in a LGS when you can get it online for cheaper (typically), avoid a transfer fee, and not have to pay tax?

I don't think that's what the case says.

Let's say there's a FALGS (Far Away LGS) that you find a good deal at. In 2014, you would have to have the FALGS do the background check and send the pistol to your LGS, and pay the transfer fee, etc. You would still pay whatever the local sales tax is.

If this holds up, you don't have to pay the transfer fee to the LGS. I don't think that was a real profit center for LGSs anyway (but I could be wrong). You would just have the FALGS send it to your home.

At least, I believe that's the significant ramification of this decision.

From the doxology of Kirk:

Ok, let's slice this apple real thin.

If you go to Missouri for a fun-filled GFGT family vacation, dad wanders off and hits Big Jim's House of Guns & Stuff, sees a gun he likes, passes on it because he wants it in a different caliber and then buys the Ruger LCR he has been looking for, buys the handgun from an FFL, passes the NICS check, pay for it, and walks out the door with it from Big Jim's House of Guns & Stuff in Columbia, Missouri and then walk down to DHL or Fedex and ship it back to stately GFGT Manor?

Sure.

If you mean, I sit in my house in Indiana and have Big Jim mail it to me without the 4473 and the NICS check?

No.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't think that's what the case says.

Let's say there's a FALGS (Far Away LGS) that you find a good deal at. In 2014, you would have to have the FALGS do the background check and send the pistol to your LGS, and pay the transfer fee, etc. You would still pay whatever the local sales tax is.

If this holds up, you don't have to pay the transfer fee to the LGS. I don't think that was a real profit center for LGSs anyway (but I could be wrong). You would just have the FALGS send it to your home.

At least, I believe that's the significant ramification of this decision.

From the doxology of Kirk:

I think you just walk out with it. No shipping period.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Wow that would be awesome for individuals, but crushing for LGS. Why would anyone buy something in a LGS when you can get it online for cheaper (typically), avoid a transfer fee, and not have to pay tax?

As I understand it, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, you would still have to fill out the 4473 in person. Online buying would still be basically the same. The big benefit would be for people who travel out of state a lot. Handgun purchases would be just like long gun purchases are now.

 

[Bfish]

Wow! This is exciting!

 

[spec4]

The 4473 could be filled out on line and signed electronically. We do it with our tax returns.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The 4473 could be filled out on line and signed electronically. We do it with our tax returns.

How do you verify the person is who they say they are? While I'd be quite happy if it did, I doubt the ruling goes this far.