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

Mr H · Feb 13, 2015

Interesting piece out this morning...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...why-did-democrats-offer-it-legislatively-2013

FrankZ · Feb 13, 2015

swinokur said:
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.

Can we just call it the gun store loophole in the ruling?

swinokur · Feb 13, 2015

i'm sure the antis will call it a loophole. anything that allows freedom is a loophole to them

shootin the breeze · Feb 13, 2015

Mr H said:
Interesting piece out this morning...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...why-did-democrats-offer-it-legislatively-2013

Maybe if this is pointed out to the Judge (if he's not already aware), it will squash as stay...

swinokur · Feb 13, 2015

The stay will be issue4d by the appeals court, probably not the DC.

jcutonilli · Feb 13, 2015

Inigoes said:
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.

The ruling currently only applies to the Northern District of Texas. The applicability to the 5th Circuit only occurs when the 5th Circuit reviews the case.

esqappellate · Feb 13, 2015

jcutonilli said:
The ruling currently only applies to the Northern District of Texas. The applicability to the 5th Circuit only occurs when the 5th Circuit reviews the case.

It is not even binding in the N.D.Tx. No district court decision is binding on any other district court judge.

swinokur · Feb 13, 2015

It is only binding on the defendants and the plaintiffs is it not?

esqappellate · Feb 13, 2015

swinokur said:
It is only binding on the defendants and the plaintiffs is it not?

Right now, correct. ANd it is binding on defendants only as to these plaintiffs.

Allen65 · Feb 13, 2015

But given the defendant is the USAG, if whatever policy change comes about as a result of the case wasn't applied to all, wouldn't that raise 14th amendment issues?

swinokur · Feb 13, 2015

who has standing besides the plaintiffs as of now?

john_bud · Feb 13, 2015

swinokur said:
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.

You forget, some states are free. Our state has no ffl involvement in face to face sales. Just swap green for cold blue, shake hands and walk away. Once finalized, wouldn't that mean all is well selling to anyone?

swinokur · Feb 13, 2015

FTF for residents of the same state, not different states

esqappellate · Feb 13, 2015

Allen65 said:
But given the defendant is the USAG, if whatever policy change comes about as a result of the case wasn't applied to all, wouldn't that raise 14th amendment issues?

Nope.

ezliving · Feb 14, 2015

Civil Rights should not be this complicated or vary by jurisdiction.

swinokur · Feb 14, 2015

Umm, unless I'm mistaken, and I could be, District Court decisions do not apply nationwide until SCOTUS hears the case (if they even grant cert) and issues a ruling. In fact if I'm not mistaken, they don't even apply to the Circuit until they hear the case first and issue a ruling. The ruling applies to both the plaintiff and the defendants for now as I understand this.

IANAL

Kharn · Feb 14, 2015

swinokur said:
Umm, unless I'm mistaken, and I could be, District Court decisions do not apply nationwide until SCOTUS hears the case (if they even grant cert) and issues a ruling. In fact if I'm not mistaken, they don't even apply to the Circuit until they hear the case first and issue a ruling. The ruling applies to both the plaintiff and the defendants for now as I understand this.

IANAL

I wonder if NICS employees have post-it notes on their monitors listing the plaintiffs from this case.

Patrick · Feb 25, 2015

swinokur said:
Umm, unless I'm mistaken, and I could be, District Court decisions do not apply nationwide until SCOTUS hears the case (if they even grant cert) and issues a ruling. In fact if I'm not mistaken, they don't even apply to the Circuit until they hear the case first and issue a ruling. The ruling applies to both the plaintiff and the defendants for now as I understand this.

IANAL

Yup, but these things have a way of jumping into other courts. Holder is already appealing, so we're looking at an appellate decision in 18 months or so.

Chipping the stone wall takes time, I guess.

Inigoes · Mar 2, 2015

Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for 60-Day Stay

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Denying-Defendants-Motion-for-60-Day-Stay.pdf

DC-W · Mar 2, 2015

ALRIGHT!

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banana'd

Liberty = Responsibility

In a State of Bliss

Missed it by that much

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

In a State of Bliss

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

President, MSI

Besieger

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics