esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
The FFL must comply with he law of the state of residence. Which means that the out of state FFL would use MSPolice as the POC agency and require an HQL and the 7 day requirement.
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:
The FFL must comply with he law of the state of residence. Which means that the out of state FFL would use MSPolice as the POC agency and require an HQL and the 7 day requirement.
chale127
Ultimate Member
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,989
Somehow the Commerce Clause failed to make an appearance - unless I missed it in the wad of turgid prose. As a favorite catch-all, I'd have thought someone would have brought it up.
- Oct 25, 2012
- 3,366
Additionally Frosh would send every FFL in the country a letter threatening legal action if they sold anything to an MD resident. (buying the postage with HQL fee money no doubt).
jimbobborg
Oddball caliber fan
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.
I just had another thought. I could go into New Jersey and purchase a pistol and walk out with it
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Right now, only as to these particular plaintiffs. That will change if the 5th Circuit affirms, then it will apply circuit wide. If it does affirm, this has SCT written all over it.
Press release
[FONT="][/FONT]
CCRKBA Wins SAF-Funded Case On Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban
[FONT="]BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today won a major federal court ruling 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="]The case, which was financially supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, is known as Mance v. Holder. It involves plaintiffs residing in the District of Columbia and Texas, and could have far-reaching ramifications, according to CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“Our lawsuit strikes at the heart of a debate that has been ongoing for several years, since the creation of the National Instant Check System (NICS),” Gottlieb said. “With the advent of the NICS system, it makes no sense to perpetuate a ban on interstate transfers of handguns.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]Indeed, in his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, writes, “(T)he Court finds that the federal interstate handgun transfer ban burdens conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]The judge later added, “By failing to provide specific information to demonstrate the reasonable fit between this ban and illegal sales and lack of notice in light of the Brady Act amendments to the 1968 Gun Control Act, the ban is not substantially related to address safety concerns. Thus, even under intermediate scrutiny, the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is unconstitutional on its face.”[/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="]“It is bizarre and irrational to destroy the national market for an item that Americans have a fundamental right to purchase,” Gura observed. “Americans would never tolerate a ban on the interstate sale of books or contraceptives. And Americans are free to buy rifles and shotguns outside their state of residence, so long as the dealers respect the laws of the buyer’s home state. We’re gratified that the Court agreed that handguns should be treated no differently.”[/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]
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
SS?
And IS?
And equal protection..
Blomberg may stroke out..
And IS?
And equal protection..
Blomberg may stroke out..
pilotguy299
Ultimate Member
But wouldn't he have to file suit in the jurisdiction where the transaction took place?
Love to see Frosh have to argue the case in a different circuit...
Kilroy
Ultimate Member
- Jul 27, 2011
- 3,069
So... Being an Arizona resident living in MD, I will be able to buy whatever I want in PA or VA soon?
ken792
Ultimate Member
Actually, the GCA banned interstate FFL sales of long guns, unless in adjacent states of the laws of both states specifically allowed it. That restriction was removed with the 1986 FOPA, allowing long guns to be purchased in any state at an FFL, provided the laws of both states are followed. It happened once, and it can happen again. Hopefully soon handguns can be bought just like long guns.
I doubt that your small local FFL is going to do many out of state sales, the bigger discounters will just have a step by step manual with the forms for the restrictive states. If this stands, within a month there will be 5 different service providers willing to handle the paperwork for the FFLs. As people now save on the shipping and transfer in their state, the large out of state dealers will offer a 'out of state sales fee' of $30 and keep that revenue in house rather than sharing it with a FFL in the state of residence.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
SB281 language did not limit transfers to MD.
Oh, right... FOPA is what I was thinking about and threw out the wrong acronym.
Again.
I wasn't referring to SB281, except where I mentioned the magazine thing. There's no federal law requiring out-of-state vendors to comply with the magazine restrictions of other states, so it's not really relevant that the language in SB281 doesn't specify "in Maryland."
As pointed out, it's a crack in the wall.
