Mance v Holder: CCRKBA/SAF out-of-state pistol sales, 5th Circuit

Pinecone · Feb 12, 2015

jimbobborg said:
So if this is upheld, I can head up to MD and buy a handgun and walk out with it?

No.

Fed law says for long guns you have to meet the laws for both the state of purchase and state of residence of the purchaser.

So a VA resident would need an HQL to purchase in MD, fill out the 77R and wait.

An MD resident purchasing in VA would still require the HQL and have to find a VA dealer willing to fill out and submit the 77R (and HAVE one) and hold the pistol until the 8th day.

Pinecone · Feb 12, 2015

Patrick said:
In theory, yes. As a Virginia resident, you would have an easier time in MD than I would.

So 'eff you and your hillbilly neighbors.

No, have to meet the laws of both states.

Pinecone · Feb 12, 2015

swinokur said:
wonder what will become of the handgun roster if the sale is outside MD.

Still has to be on the roster.

The Fed Law says out of state purchases must meet the laws of BOTH states, where the purchase occurs and the state of residence of the purchaser.

Pinecone · Feb 12, 2015

jrwhitt said:
Lots of us on the CA side are interested in how that breaks out too.

Stated in the judge's opinion.

Pinecone · Feb 12, 2015

So how long for MD to change the law and/or COMAR to specify for MD resident?

adit · Feb 12, 2015

DC-W said:
I'm just laughing at the mental image of a FFL in AZ bothering themselves with the hassle of 77r forms and the MSP.

I wonder if the handgun lock rules apply as well????

I still don't see any outside FFL dicking with MD law.

Consider the 7 day wait, then the FFL having to go retrieve a handgun a few weeks later for a "Disapproved" purchase. Not going to happen, not worth the risk.

swinokur · Feb 12, 2015

Pinecone said:
Still has to be on the roster.

The Fed Law says out of state purchases must meet the laws of BOTH states, where the purchase occurs and the state of residence of the purchaser.

It has to be on the roster for sale IN THE STATE .

29.03.03.02
.02 Handgun Roster Board; Handgun Roster.

A. Pursuant to Public Safety Article, Title 5, Subtitle 4, Annotated Code of Maryland, there is a Handgun Roster Board within the Department of State Police. The office of the Handgun Roster Board is 1201 Reisterstown Road, Pikesville, Maryland 21208.

B. Except as provided in §C of this regulation, a person may not manufacture for distribution or sale any handgun that is not included on the Handgun Roster compiled by the Board. A person may not sell or offer for sale in the State a handgun manufactured after January 1, 1985, that is not on the Handgun Roster. Compliance with the provisions of this section is not required until January 1, 1990.

C. This regulation does not interfere with:

(1) A person's ability to:

(a) Manufacture, sell, or offer to sell a rifle or other weapon not defined as a handgun in Regulation .01B of this chapter,

(b) Manufacture a prototype handgun model required for design, development, testing, and approval by the Board; and

(2) The manufacturing in the State of a handgun not on the Handgun Roster by a federally licensed gun manufacturer that is also licensed as a Regulated Firearms Dealer in the State for direct sale to a unit of:

(a) The federal government,

(b) A state other than Maryland,

(c) An out-of-State local government, or

(d) An out-of-State law enforcement agency.

krucam · Feb 12, 2015

22 days from the Hearing (1/20/15) to Opinion/Order (2/11/15). The case was filed last July.
Smokin'...
:smoke:

http://ia902506.us.archive.org/20/i...d.249263/gov.uscourts.txnd.249263.docket.html

2015-01-08 37 0 ELECTRONIC ORDER: Motion Hearing set for 1/20/2015 10:30 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 2nd Floor, 501 W. 10th St. Fort Worth, TX 76102-3673 before Judge Reed C O'Connor. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 1/8/2015) (leg) (chmb) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

2015-01-20 38 0 ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Reed C O'Connor: Motion Hearing held on 1/20/2015 re 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Eric H Holder, Jr, B Todd Jones, 21 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Andrew Hanson, Fredric Russell Mance, Jr, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Tracey Ambeau Hanson. Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff - Alan Gura; Defense - Lesley Farby. (Court Reporter: Denver Roden) (No exhibits) Time in Court - 2:15. (chmb) Modified on 1/21/2015 (chmb). (Entered: 01/21/2015)

2015-02-06 39 0 ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Reed C O'Connor: Telephone Conference held on 2/6/2015. The parties clarified that, when a federal firearms licensee transfers a handgun to an out-of-state purchaser's home-state federal firearms licensee, the background check requirement in 18 U.S.C.§ 922 is completed by the home-state federal firearms licensee. Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff - Alan Gura, Bill Meteja; Defense - Lesley Farby. (Court Reporter: Not Recorded) (No exhibits) Time in Court - :10. (chmb) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

2015-02-11 40 0 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing 15 is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 21 is GRANTED, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 15 is DENIED. Accordingly, the Court DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a) are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing these provisions. The Court will issue its final judgment separately. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 2/11/2015) (ndt) (Entered: 02/11/2015) 2015-02-11 13:16:48 df8b4eea7b6f7fb6c39177e4db8dc6056ee11df6

2015-02-11 41 0 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) 2015-02-11 13:20:24 10decda03bc12feabc0cb51c067f51ccd849e937

FrankZ · Feb 12, 2015

krucam said:
22 days from the Hearing (1/20/15) to Opinion/Order (2/11/15). The case was filed last July.
Smokin'...

http://ia902506.us.archive.org/20/i...d.249263/gov.uscourts.txnd.249263.docket.html

You mean justice doesn't need 7 years to get done?

swinokur · Feb 12, 2015

closer to two weeks.

KPSpeller · Feb 12, 2015

A new ruling has been made removing the requirement to transfer handguns from out-of-state to an in-state FEL. DOJ is reviewing.

http://m.wamu.org/#/news/15/02/11/r...ate_handgun_purchases_easier_for_dc_residents

swinokur · Feb 12, 2015

really? do tell.

wondered what this thread was about.

protegeV · Feb 12, 2015

KPSpeller said:
A new ruling has been made removing the requirement to transfer handguns from out-of-state to an in-state FEL. DOJ is reviewing.

http://m.wamu.org/#/news/15/02/11/r...ate_handgun_purchases_easier_for_dc_residents

john_bud · Feb 12, 2015

Pinecone said:
Still has to be on the roster.

The Fed Law says out of state purchases must meet the laws of BOTH states, where the purchase occurs and the state of residence of the purchaser.

What about face to face non-ffl sales?

Kilroy · Feb 12, 2015

DC-W said:
I'm just laughing at the mental image of a FFL in AZ bothering themselves with the hassle of 77r forms and the MSP.

I'm not a legal MD resident, I just live here. (Military) Why would they mess with MD requirements?

DC-W · Feb 12, 2015

Kilroy said:
I'm not a legal MD resident, I just live here. (Military) Why would they mess with MD requirements?

The one's who are hungrier will, but I don't think that'd be many. This helps folks like you far more than Marylanders abroad.

cap6888 · Feb 13, 2015

john_bud said:
What about face to face non-ffl sales?

Here is the million dollar question. If an FFL is no longer needed for interstate purchases, as long as both parties of the FTF follow the rules, all is good, correct?

swinokur · Feb 13, 2015

The ruling affected buying directly from an out of state FFL.

FTF sales were not part of the suit AFAIK. Still need an FFL for an out of state purchase. It just doesn't need to go through an FFL in your home state.

IANAL.

Inigoes · Feb 13, 2015

swinokur said:
The ruling affected buying from a directly from an out of state FFL.

FTF sales were not part of the suit AFAIK. Still need an FFL for an out of state purchase. It just doesn't need to go through an FFL in your home state.

IANAL.

My understanding as well, we are on the same page.

Interstate handgun sales processes should be identical to the interstate long gun sales processes.

What sucks: the ruling only applies to the 5th Circuit jurisdiction. We need to get the opinion national.

ras_oscar · Feb 13, 2015

If this ruling stands, I predict the MGA will move to expand the "sale or offer for sale" language to include "posess". A much tougher rule to get passed, since it means confiscation of formerly legally posessed arms.

Mance v Holder: CCRKBA/SAF out-of-state pistol sales, 5th Circuit

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

ReMember

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Liberty = Responsibility

In a State of Bliss

Member

In a State of Bliss

Ready to go

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics