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

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!
  • Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    CCRKBA press release
    CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, noting that his organization rarely pursues a legal action of such magnitude, said today’s lawsuit is necessary to advance the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens. He said current law essentially criminalizes the interstate handgun market, which does not apply to the sale of rifles or shotguns.

    “It is overreaching, if not downright silly, in today’s environment with the federal instant background check system to perpetuate a prohibition on interstate handgun purchases that has outlived its usefulness,” Gottlieb observed. “If a law-abiding citizen can clear a background check and legally purchase a handgun in his own state, he would pass the same background check just across the border in another state.”


    We'll see where this goes, hopefully a different outcome than Lane v Holder.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Interesting..

    Any idea what thus will do for restrictive states?

    My gut says not much..

    Probably not, unless there's some kind of mechanism where the dealers in other states can somehow follow the restrictive states' process, like requiring a pistol permit,exc.

    My take is that the SAF sees this as low hanging fruit, and the 5th Circuit is heavily stacked with GOP nominated judges. The NRA cases involving 18-20 Y/O didn't fare well at CA5 (though they missed en banc by just 1 vote in BATFE).
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,394
    Westminster USA
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​

    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]CCRKBA FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING
    FEDERAL LAW ON HANDGUN PURCHASES[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has filed a lawsuit today in federal court in Texas against Attorney General Eric Holder and B. Todd Jones, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, challenging the current federal law prohibiting cross-state handgun purchases.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] CCRKBA brings this lawsuit on behalf of its members throughout the country, who would legally buy and sell handguns outside of their home states, just as they currently do with long guns. Joining CCRKBA as plaintiffs in the case are Texas resident Fredric Russell Mance, Jr., and Tracey Ambeau Hanson and Andrew Hanson, both of Washington, D.C. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth division. Financial assistance for the lawsuit is provided by the Second Amendment Foundation.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, noting that his organization rarely pursues a legal action of such magnitude, said today’s lawsuit is necessary to advance the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens. He said current law essentially criminalizes the interstate handgun market, which does not apply to the sale of rifles or shotguns.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] “It is overreaching, if not downright silly, in today’s environment with the federal instant background check system to perpetuate a prohibition on interstate handgun purchases that has outlived its usefulness,” Gottlieb observed. “If a law-abiding citizen can clear a background check and legally purchase a handgun in his own state, he would pass the same background check just across the border in another state.”[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] This is very important to District of Columbia residents, who can now legally purchase rifles and shotguns from federally-licensed gun dealers in neighboring states, but they still may not purchase handguns. Plaintiff Mance is a federally licensed firearms dealer who would sell handguns directly to consumers in other states, but under current law, he is prohibited from doing so. The Hansons are fully qualified under federal law, and laws in Texas and the District of Columbia, to purchase and possess handguns.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] “Federal law allows for interstate long gun sales,” Gottlieb noted, “as long as the dealer follows the law, so what’s the logic of the federal government banning interstate handgun sales? Some states allow for, or even welcome, interstate handgun sales, so what’s the federal government doing?”[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]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 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​
    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​
    <Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family>​
    Copyright © 2014 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.​
    [FONT=&quot]Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
    James Madison Building
    12500 N.E. Tenth Place
    Bellevue, WA 98005[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Voice: 425-454-4911
    Toll Free: 800-426-4302
    FAX: 425-451-3959
    Email: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org[/FONT]​
    ...

     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,468
    Ruling for the plaintiffs....is this big? It looks like it may be....though I'm sure an appeal is imminent.

    Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendants have not shown that the federalinterstate handgun transfer ban is narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means of achieving the Government’s goals under current law. The federal interstate handgun transfer ban is therefore unconstitutional on its face.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/255462603/40-Mance-v-Holder-Memo-Opinion-and-Order
     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,468
    Ok I'm starting to process this...would this ruling mean (edit: district issues aside) that I could buy a handgun in VA (with high capacity magazines, of course)? Would it then create an equal protection issue with regards to the 77r for a MD resident?
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    A good decision. A few points to answer a few questions (I have read the whole thing):

    - Texas FFL can transfer handguns bought in Texas to a DC couple, so long as the DC couple comply with DC law and have the proper DC permits (as in this case).

    - Generally speaking, the selling FFL must comply with the laws of the receiver's state. So a MD person would need to have her MD HQL to purchase in Virginia, for instance. The judge notes this is already the case for rifles, and specifically calls out cases where a Texas or Nevada dealer would not be able to sell an "assault weapon" to a CA person. He also noted that the ATF publishes annually to all FFLs the rules and regs they need to follow. Presumptively, he envisions they would add a handgun section, as well.

    Left unsaid is how to handle waiting periods, but he rules based on the fact the Federal law imposes unnecessary costs and delays. So it's part of the record - not dicta - and subject to argument on appeal. If the feds push, 'uneccessary delays' would be part of a final appellate ruling. It would not invalidate waiting periods, but could form the basis for a follow-on action elsewhere. That said, I don't think there are any mandatory waiting periods anywhere in the Fifth Circuit. So it'd be a tougher jump.

    Also: this is going to be stayed pending appeal. We all know it, so let's not spend 100 posts guessing. :)

    Good work, Alan.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Ok I'm starting to process this...would this ruling mean (edit: district issues aside) that I could buy a handgun in VA (with high capacity magazines, of course)? Would it then create an equal protection issue with regards to the 77r for a MD resident?
    No, the Judge made clear that you need to follow the laws of your home state (HQL, etc.). Left unsaid is how to handle waiting periods.

    The 5th Amendment claim (the more interesting of the two, in my mind) was specific to the fact the federal law created disparities in the exercise of a fundamental right, based on state residency. So the federal law created a scenario where the law prevented a transfer that was otherwise legal (the plaintiffs has DC permits), just because the buyer was not a resident of the state where the purchase/transfer was occurring (right to keep arms covers purchase).

    That does not mean that Texas and DC law would have to be the same, though. All it means is that the federal cannot create an encumbrance on a constitutional right that hinges on your residency. Put a little more succinctly (I hope): the ruling says that the feds cannot deny your right, just because you happen to be out of your home state. He quotes Ezell, where the 7th Circuit said Chicago could not ban gun ranges even though they were available in nearby suburbs.

    Now, this addresses federal law. State laws vary, and some prevent sales or purchase over state lines. The judge also opened a door there:

    The Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny in situations where state laws discriminated against non-residents, and those cases involved benefits offered by the state, not constitutional rights. Mem’l Hosp., 415 U.S. at 254

    Highlight is my own - Patrick
    The judge was pretty good about cracking open some doors that someone like Gura can kick a little.

    Edit: Florida I think still has laws preventing sales/purchase for out-of-state residents, even on rifles and shotguns.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,869
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom