Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by 44Brent, Feb 11, 2015.
I expect Mike Vanderbough to make an announcement shortly that "CCRKBA and Alan Gotlieb are traitors, bootlickers, and compromisers because they didn't get the Firearms Act of 1934 thrown out. Time to storm the court room and get this injunction thrown out."
So wonder when I can run down to Keith's and pick up a new pistol? Ohh isn't there a gunshow this weekend?
So does this mean I can drive up to Washington state and buy guns through a dealer?
Unconstitutional, says judge: CCRKBA wins case on interstate handgun transfers
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today scored a major victory in federal district court in Texas when a judge ruled that current law requiring residency for handgun transfers is unconstitutional.
See, I disagree with this ruling because now I'll spend even more money when I travel around the country!
Thanks Dave...had to read the USC codes and the ruling a couple times to get the gist of what you summarized in a few paragraphs.
Face-to-face, out of state pistol transfers are legal!
Are they? Or just from a FFL like rifles? How will it affect us in WA with 594 rules?
One small step!!
I like it!
If it's true I can buy from another state ya'll might want to stay clear of the north bound lanes on I5. No really I think the feds will fight this all the way to the Supreme court. How ever if it becomes real there is a seller that will see me at their door very soon.
So, before we get too excited about this, what lines of appeals, injunctions, etc. are still in place to prevent folks from just going out and starting to purchase across state lines? He's a district court judge, does that give him authority (I don't know) to rule this unconstitutional, and suddenly it's the new law of the land? What if the SCOTUS decides to jump in and block this until they can take up the case?
Seems like there will be more to this before I'd risk trying it myself. I suspect a lot of dealers are going to stand pat on the current law until they get some further clarification. Plus, it will probably take a while to get all the law enforcement agencies up to date on the nature of the new ruling.
I doubt any gun shop would want to be the first to test the waters.
You don't need to ask all of these questions. You can find out the answers quite easily for yourself by following the links and reading the court docket. http://ia902506.us.archive.org/20/i...d.249263/gov.uscourts.txnd.249263.docket.html
Did you read the docket?
Who gave the judge the authority? Answer: Congress.
Who is prohibited from enforcing the law? Answer: The defendants who are listed on the court dockets, which include:
1) Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (and any person or agency under him).
2) Attorney General of the United States (and any person or agency under him).
What happens if any of the defendants attempt to violate the judge's ruling? Answer: they can be held in contempt of court, i.e. fined, thrown in jail.
What else would you like? A red carpet rolled out between you and a gun shop across state lines, along with a personal invitation by the director of the BATFE to walk on the red carpet?
Are we reading the same thing?
FTF would still be a no go....all this means is you could buy a handgun from a dealer in another state just like you can rifles and shotguns now. Private interstate transactions aren't affected...( still not legal, which I di disagree with, FWIW )
That's actually a good idea. ATF should apologize for violating the constitution (and when they dont follow court orders) and roll out the carpet. Perhaps the director should retire for violating the constitution as well and they should double their efforts to make sure all their rules are strictly following the constitution.
Nah, I bet they will just ignore the court order and squash someones rights first chance they get.
Laws outlawing private commerce (interstate or otherwise) has been null n void (legally) ever since the declaration of independence. All people are more free than they dare to live because they're too afraid of what someone else will do with that same freedom. That whole 'security above liberty' phrase has way too much truth to it.
So (and yes I know I am being lazy but I am watching the grand daughters so I don't have enough time to read everything.
Does this have any effect on purchasing through the mail? I assume that would still have to have a background check done in person at a FFL.
Thanks for the unnecessarily nasty response.
No, I didn't read the docket, which is why I asked the question. I'm sorry, is there a rule here on the forum against asking questions? Sheesh. Take a chill bud, I was just wondering if this is really too good to be true. Step off the high-horse for a few.
And yes, regardless of what you note, I'm not convinced. Lawyers and politicians are well known for gumming up the works, but I'm sure that NEVER happens, does it?
WOW my Little brother just had his day made. He has a Gun Shop in Sierra Vista AZ. right next to a Marine base with 20,000 Marines and the whole area is covered with snow birds that come into his gun shop and drooling all over his show cases.
His customer base just got a little Bigger LOL
Separate names with a comma.