krucam
Ultimate Member
This will essentially expedite the USAG in appealing. The Judge opened the door (FRAP) if they do so. Good....I hope....
Mance v Holder: CCRKBA/SAF out-of-state pistol sales, 5th Circuit
- Thread starter Kharn
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
This will essentially expedite the USAG in appealing. The Judge opened the door (FRAP) if they do so. Good....I hope....
...[FONT="][/FONT]
Federal Judge Denies Stay Request In Gun Transfer Case
[FONT="]BELLEVUE, WA – A federal court in Texas has denied a government motion for a 60-day stay in a case involving interstate handgun transfers in which the judge applied strict scrutiny to determine whether a ban on such transfers meets constitutional muster.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The case, known as Mance v. Holder, was filed by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and is financially supported by the Second Amendment Foundation. It involves plaintiffs residing in Texas and the District of Columbia, and the ruling last month by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, found that “the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is unconstitutional on its face.”[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The government had asked for a 60-day stay in order to decide whether to file an appeal. But Judge O’Connor ruled today that a stay is not warranted because the government could offer no other reasons for its request other than the court’s “inherent authority to manage its docket.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]“We’re delighted that Judge O’Connor is not going to simply allow the government to stall this ruling,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “This case could have significant ramifications nationwide, and allowing a two-month stay while the government essentially claims it will be thinking about whether to appeal obviously was not warranted.”[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]CCRKBA and the individual plaintiffs are represented by Virginia attorney Alan Gura and Texas attorney William B. “Bill” Mateja of Fish & Richardson in Dallas.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.[/FONT]
<Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family>[FONT="]Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear ArmsCopyright © 2015 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005[/FONT]
[FONT="]Voice: 425-454-4911
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
Email: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org[/FONT]
IANAL but AFAIK it still only applies to states in the 5th circuit, of which DC, MD and VA are not included.
Someone with a PACER account needs to confirm if the government appealed.
Nothing is being displayed on http://michellawyers.com/mance-v-holder/
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
The government filed a notice of appeal on April 10, 2015. Case is docketed in the Fifth Circuit as 15-10311. Record on appeal was transmitted to counsel in early June. The gov's brief (of appellant) is due in mid-July. And no, the decision of the district court and any decision of the court of appeals for the 5th Circuit would be only persuasive authority in the D.C. Circuit or the 4th Circuit. Still, it would be a case of great significance if plaintiff wins. Indeed one of the plaintiffs is a DC resident. The FFL is a Texas shop.
This case was argued back in January, link here: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/15/15-10311_1-6-2016.MP3
Not sure which judges are on the panel. Also having a hard time figuring who'll win.
Not sure which judges are on the panel. Also having a hard time figuring who'll win.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
It is docket number 15-10311. Oral argument was before Judges Prado, Owen, Haynes, and I agree, it is a hard call. We have, perhaps, at least one judge favoring unconstitutional "as applied" rather than facially. Hard to read the other two. I don't think Judge Prado (the only male judge on the panel) said much. Judge Owen (Priscilla Owen) is pro-2A and she may have been the persistent questioner at argument. The other two judges (Judge Edward Prado and Judge Catharina Haynes) were on the panel that ruled against the NRA in NRA v. BATF where the issue on appeal concerned the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and attendant regulations, which prohibit federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to persons under the age of 21.
kcbrown
Super Genius
- Jun 16, 2012
- 1,393
Since Prado and Haynes ruled against the NRA in NRA v BATFE, I suspect it's much more likely than not that we'll lose this one, and on much the same grounds (such as "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms", being "presumptively lawful", "must not trigger strict scrutiny"). In fact, they'll use NRA v BATFE as precedent for their decision here.
I will be quite surprised if we win this one.
SCOTUS will, of course, deny cert...
Kharn
Ultimate Member
IIRC NRA v BATFe missed en banc by one vote? Maybe one will be swayed over rifles being sold across state lines without a problem and the full court could consider it.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Good memory, Kharn. KC, asking a court to invalidate a long standing federal statute is *always* hard. Judges just don't like doing that. If you listen to the argument in this case (Mance), you will hear judges trying to figure out whether the burden on plaintiffs is a big deal along with the underlying rationale of the federal law. I wish Gura well and, typical of Gura, I think he argued the case very well, but I have always thought this case was a long shot. That said, I think Gura is dead right on the merits, viz, there is no earthly reason that FFLs can't sell handguns across state lines just as they do with long guns in strict compliance with the law of the state of the residence. That may not be good enough to strike down a federal statute under which DC residents can, albeit with difficulty and extra cost, still procure a handgun. See Kwong. Given the panel, 2/1 win for the government on the as applied challenge, 3/0 on the facial challenge. I very much hope I'm wrong.
Don't these laws only date to the 1960's (10 years or so before the DC ban went into effect)?
As I understand it, the Federal law was in place only to keep individuals from skirting their state's gun laws. With the internet and state laws at your fingertips, seems this law is obsolete and only benefits shipping companies.
bunnybunny
Member
- Mar 3, 2016
- 55
I believe this went into effect during 68 GCA, so I'd hardly call it long standing.
The District Court disagreed of course:Defendants list the earliest known state residency restrictions on the purchase or possession of firearms, with the earliest of these restrictions occurring in 1909.[5] See Defs.' App. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 2, App. at 103, ECF No. 17-1. Defendants have not presented, and the Court cannot find, any earlier evidence of longstanding interstate, geography-based, or residency-based firearm restrictions. The Court need not require "a precise founding-era analogue," but these early twentieth century state residency restrictions do not date back quite far enough to be considered longstanding.
I just don't see why the court can't send it back to Congress asking for a re-write. The technology has improved so much that the law's intended purpose can be obtained much more easily without a total ban. There's also the fact only a few states require anything other than a NICS check to take possession. The rest of the nation shouldn't suffer because a few states want to run their citizens through a bunch of hoops.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
deerhtr
Active Member
my take will be that dealers still will not sell to out of staters for fear of suit by state prosecutors. just like all the threads on here now about this very thing happening with accessories.
