Federal Interstate Handgun Sales Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

[Greenbug]

What about the individual STATE laws prohibiting their residents from purchasing a firearm (long gun or hand gun) out of their state of residence?

Or the STATE laws prohibiting selling long guns or hand guns to out of state residents?

 

[RicInOR]

Another explanation of the ruling

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/11/federal-judge-strikes-down-federal-inter

 

[Pandaz3]

I was not aware of those state laws.....Anyway I would have bought many a handgun out of state had this federal rule been in effect. Hip Hip Hooray! I say!

 

[The Heretic]

Yes, state laws may still be in effect, and if they are not, then I would bet that they would soon be in some states - such as Oregon and Washington, especially the latter.

That said, once the dust settles (I would bet this will go all the way to SCOTUS), if it is still in our favor, then there are other states - such as Idaho. If WA state wanted to prohibit sales to WA state residents in another state, then they would have to enact laws prohibiting importation and essentially enact full on registration of all handguns or maybe something to that effect (I would guess) - i.e., WA state would become very much like California if they wanted to control such purchases.

As for those who want to go to another state to buy a handgun, you could always do that; you just needed to have an FFL in your home state that would accept the transfer, make the purchase through them by paying the dealer in the other state. It is a bit more hassle, but it was possible - you just had to involve two FFLs.

 

[Pandaz3]

I am not really up on California law or some others too, but It would seem to me if you bought a California compliant gun say in Las Vegas then you would have no problem taking it home to California .... if that's where you decided to live

 

[CWOUSCG]

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 )

No sir, FTF is now legal. The judge threw out the parts of GCA 68 forbidding FTF. You may now buy a handgun from anyone you like, anywhere you like and transport back into your home state.
State laws may still apply but the GCA has been gutted.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Soon it may be time to drive down to Oregon and buy some handguns without sales tax!!

 

[Fast Eddie]

Subscribed...

 

[rick benjamin]

FINAL JUDGMENT.
The Court DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and 27C.F.R. § 478.99(a)
are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing these provisions.
(Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 2/11/2015) (ndt) (Entered: 02/11/2015)



18 U.S.C. §922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer,

or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides
(or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, 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 preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm 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 receipt 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;



18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3)

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—

(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in
the State in which the licensee's place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not

apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both

such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any

person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

27 C.F.R. §478.99
Certain prohibited sales or deliveries.
(a) Interstate sales or deliveries. A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector shall not sell or deliver any firearm 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 maintain 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 paragraph (1) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of a rifle or shotgun (curio or relic, in the case of a licensed collector) 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).

 

[usagi]

alan gura is the man! kudos to ccrkba for backing this.

 

[The Heretic]

I will wait until the appeals work through, the legal beagles explain the ramifications, and the BATF changes their online FAQs to reflect the changes, etc.

But if FTF interstate is legal, then that would be cool - indeed, if it worked out that way, and Oregon didn't put in place a 594 like law, this would be a way for WA state citizens to get their guns down here instead? We'll see I guess.

I have my doubts about FTF interstate as the reasoning behind the challenge was based on the national background check system, and in most states a BGC is not required for non-FFL transfers.

 

[coctailer]

I will wait until the appeals work through, the legal beagles explain the ramifications, and the BATF changes their online FAQs to reflect the changes, etc.

But if FTF interstate is legal, then that would be cool - indeed, if it worked out that way, and Oregon didn't put in place a 594 like law, this would be a way for WA state citizens to get their guns down here instead? We'll see I guess.

I have my doubts about FTF interstate as the reasoning behind the challenge was based on the national background check system, and in most states a BGC is not required for non-FFL transfers.

The ruling has nothing to do with FTF sales.

You can drive to North Texas and buy from an FFL. This is the only district it applies to.

It will end there. There will be no appeal.

 

[rick benjamin]

Judge O'Connor's judgement affects interstate sales and transfers of firearms.
If the ATF, Justice Dept attempt to enforce the codes they will be in contempt of court.
Federal Firearms Licencees must still fill out and retain form 4473 etc.
Shipping companies and FFL's are out of "interstate transfer" income, maybe.
States rights will become a big issue...
This time I deleted, changed and highlighted.

FINAL JUDGMENT
The Court DECLARES that the Justice Dept. and Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms will not enforce t18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and 27C.F.R. § 478.99(a) because they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL
(Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 2/11/2015) (ndt) (Entered: 02/11/2015)

THEREFORE
18 U.S.C. §922.
(a) It is now lawful—
(3) for John-Q-Citizen, to transport into or receive in the state of Oregon where John-Q-Citizen resides any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by John-Q-Citizen outside Oregon


18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3)

(b) Oregon licensees may sell or deliver—

(3) any firearm to John-Q-Citizen who does not reside in Oregon

27 C.F.R. §478.99
Certain allowed sales or deliveries.

(a) Interstate sales or deliveries.

A licensee may sell or deliver any firearm to John-Q-Citizen

As Stomper suggests THIS IS FAR FROM OVER

 

[Martini_Up]

You can drive to North Texas and buy from an FFL. This is the only district it applies to.

It will end there. There will be no appeal.

You should contact the winning lawyer for the case and tell him he's wrong about D.C. and they actually have a long drive to N.Texas to enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights

"This is a tremendous victory for the civil rights of Washington, D.C., residents and Americans in general — the court recognized there's no need to destroy the national market for handguns," said Alan Gura, who argued the case for the plaintiffs and is a founding partner at Gura & Possessky Pllc, in the District. "District residents are free to purchase handguns so long as they comply with D.C. law and have those handguns properly registered."

 

[CWOUSCG]

I will wait until the appeals work through, the legal beagles explain the ramifications, and the BATF changes their online FAQs to reflect the changes, etc.

But if FTF interstate is legal, then that would be cool - indeed, if it worked out that way, and Oregon didn't put in place a 594 like law, this would be a way for WA state citizens to get their guns down here instead? We'll see I guess.

I have my doubts about FTF interstate as the reasoning behind the challenge was based on the national background check system, and in most states a BGC is not required for non-FFL transfers.

FTF will be legal if/when this is upheld. The judge struck down 18 USC 922 (a)(3) which states any person other than a FFL cannot bring a firearm or receive a firearm in his home state that was procured elsewhere. Has nothing to do with a dealer, this applies to non-dealers. Dealers are covered in 922(b)(3). And it's all firearms not just handguns.

 

[Diamondback]

It's a start, at least, getting the ball moving in the right direction for once.

 

[etrain16]

Time to revive this thread - anyone heard anything since February about this? I've tried some searches online, but I'll be darned if I can find another word about this in recent weeks/months. Anyone heard anything? Are people buying freely across state lines now?

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I ya'll want to pay ALL my legal fees should anything go wrong, Ill be the Guinea pig

 

[Pandaz3]

I ya'll want to pay ALL my legal fees should anything go wrong, Ill be the Guinea pig

I will give you all the moral support you need ..... unless you need it.

 

[Norm0931]

Time to revive this thread - anyone heard anything since February about this? I've tried some searches online, but I'll be darned if I can find another word about this in recent weeks/months. Anyone heard anything? Are people buying freely across state lines now?

BATFE has not issued anything out to FFLs. I believe the ruling is stayed until DoJ's appeal is heard.