Out of state sales of guns by FFL dealers in one state

[ISCS Yoda]

The link is the new opinion of the 5th Circuit on a case involving the permitting of reasonable restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...-10311-CV2.pdf

(c) public domain

I wouldn't have thought that there was any doubt that the requirement of interstate sales of handguns through FFLs to FFLs was a permissible restriction on the RKBA but, apparently, some residents of the District of Columbia (the site of the Heller decision) found it too oppressive to pay the ONLY FLL in the District his $125 transfer fee so they drove to Texas to purchase their handguns directly from a Texas FFL.

Oops.

Long drive for nothing - and what did that drive cost, anyway, never mind the time involved!

[AZretired]

$500+ in gas and motel bills to save $125. Real intelligent, even if it was legal. Idiots!

Sent from my BNTV450 using Tapatalk

[steelslaver]

I think they did it with every intention of going to court. It wasn't about the ,it was about the law.

[ParadiseRoad]

...a $125 FFL fee plus shipping starts to approach the $200 tax imposed on NFA firearms...which...of course...was intended as a disincentive to the sales of those firearms...

...I know the $64 I paid on my last $437 GB purchase put it over the $500 dollar limit I really wanted to pay...definitely a disincentive...

[steelslaver]

I personally think the law is ridiculous. If I pass the background check in Montana, I will pass it in Ohio. Just what is this law supposed to accomplish anyway?

[Bullseye 2620]

The guys who filed this suit did it to test the limits and see if they could push back this particular restriction on interstate handgun sales. They had a reasonable argument. After all, they won initially at the trial level in Federal District Court. Then they lost after the Justice Department appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

I'd like to see a case where the prohibition against non-FFLs sending handguns through the USPS to out of state FFLs is challenged. So long as I present a copy of the receiving FFL's license and the weapon is shipped to the licensee at the address listed on that license, why should I have to go through an FFL to ship a handgun through USPS? Funny thing is, if I want to ship a handgun to an out of state FFL without going through a local FFL, I can do so right now provided I ship via common carrier, e.g., FedEX or UPS. They typically cost double the post office. And that's the point: the system is structured to restrict interstate commerce by raising costs, but only to certain people, and thus, raises equal protection concerns.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by steelslaver

I personally think the law is ridiculous. If I pass the background check in Montana, I will pass it in Ohio. Just what is this law supposed to accomplish anyway?

I put it in the unreasonable restriction category.

[LoboGunLeather]

Originally Posted by ParadiseRoad

...a $125 FFL fee plus shipping starts to approach the $200 tax imposed on NFA firearms...which...of course...was intended as a disincentive to the sales of those firearms...

...I know the $64 I paid on my last $437 GB purchase put it over the $500 dollar limit I really wanted to pay...definitely a disincentive...

There is another factor involved, and that is state and local sales taxes. Your $437 purchase, if made from a local dealer in an area with 7% sales tax, would have cost you $467, so the overall difference is much smaller.

I agree with other commenters that the object of such laws and regulations is primarily to discourage lawful firearms purchases.

[ISCS Yoda]

Originally Posted by steelslaver

I personally think the law is ridiculous. If I pass the background check in Montana, I will pass it in Ohio. Just what is this law supposed to accomplish anyway?

A great deal of the GCA of 1968 doesn't accomplish much.

I think they did it with every intention of going to court. It wasn't about the ,it was about the law.

I think that is quite likely.

I agree with other commenters that the object of such laws and regulations is primarily to discourage lawful firearms purchases

Every firearm law is designed for that purpose or to restrict use. The ultimate issue for the courts is always going to be whether the restriction is reasonable. Purists/extremists will always say nothing is reasonable. And so it goes.....

[GaryS]

The Constitution of the United States does not bow or take into consideration the revenue needs of the individual states.

The question, the only question, is if this is an unreasonable restriction on expression of Right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I agree with Steelslayer that it is.

I haven't read the decision, so I don't know what the 5CA based it's opinion on. Maybe they used the ever flexible interstate commerce clause.

I expect that this will be appealed to SCOTUS, but I don't know if they'll grant cert. It will be interesting if they do, as the 5CA decision could well be overturned.

Originally Posted by LoboGunLeather

There is another factor involved, and that is state and local sales taxes. Your $437 purchase, if made from a local dealer in an area with 7% sales tax, would have cost you $467, so the overall difference is much smaller.

I agree with other commenters that the object of such laws and regulations is primarily to discourage lawful firearms purchases.

[steelslaver]

I can go to any state in the union and buy any car I want. I could have a 4 DUIs and a auto related negligent homicide and walk in and buy a brand new high horse power Corvette. No background check OR drivers license needed. Can't legally drive it, but can certainly buy it. Just need the money or credit. Who is going to stop me from getting behind the wheel. Yes, I may get arrested when I drive it. But, I can still buy.

[ladder13]

Some posts here leave me SMDH.





Purist/ extremist/absolutist am I.

[ISCS Yoda]

Some posts here leave me SMDH.





Purist/ extremist/absolutist am I.

I wish I knew what SMDH means but I bet it's mean and funny.

Justice Antonin Scalia was a strict constructionist. That's as close to being a purist as one can hope for in a Supreme Court Justice. But he was neither an extremist nor an absolutist. In his words in the Heller case he left the door open for reasonable restrictions on the RKBA and he left the term undefined. Until the SCOTUS defines it or narrows its scope that term will be usable to cover a multiplicity of restrictions by local jurisdictions and certainly the Federal government. So the 1968 GCA remains the law of the land and the restrictions on interstate sales of firearms remains the law of the land. That's just the way it is. Presently. Nobody says we have to like it.

I get the car purchasing comparison but cars are not protected by the Constitution so restrictions on them or the lack thereof really makes no difference in a legal context. It is an apt comparison but for the laws that we live under not making it so.

Remember, there are reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble and the right to speak, as two examples, so it is very difficult for Second Amendment lawyers to argue that rights cannot ever be restricted "reasonably".

[2152hq]

One reasons the court gave for rejecting the argument (a non FFL being able to purchase a handgun from an FFL in a FTF purchase in another State) was that handgun laws locally are much more complex than longgun laws and restrictions.
Purchasing a longgun in this manner is allowed under current GCA as long as the laws of both states allow it.

The court decided that with so many local and state issued handgun permits of different types, local LE write-offs needed in some instances, certifications and re-certifications, waiting periods,ect,,
that it was impossible for the FFL selling the handgun to possibly know all of the laws and regs in the buyers home state to make sure the transfer was legal.

On another tangent,,the courts opinion stated that any delay incurred by having to have a handgun shipped from out of state to an FFL in the buyers home state for transfer to that buyer was trivial and not worth consideration in this case..
The wording they used was 'de minimis' (had to look that one up!)


There're other reasons the court gave for it's reasoning.
It's mostly about the NICS system being not as complete as it's sold as being.
Many State and Local regs are not in it and it's not as up to date as it should be. It's a FEDERAL background check. The court uses that as an argument in it's decision.

Certainly no lawyer here and not trying to pretend to be.
Just reading what's been written.

Regards,,
P. Mason

[NovaJoe]

They should have gone to Virginia - like Texas, a free state. Just across a bridge. The result would have been the same for them.

[Beemer-mark]

Originally Posted by 2152hq

One reasons the court gave for rejecting the argument (a non FFL being able to purchase a handgun from an FFL in a FTF purchase in another State) was that handgun laws locally are much more complex than longgun laws and restrictions.
Purchasing a longgun in this manner is allowed under current GCA as long as the laws of both states allow it.

The court decided that with so many local and state issued handgun permits of different types, local LE write-offs needed in some instances, certifications and re-certifications, waiting periods,ect,,http://smith-wessonforum.com/2nd-ame...-new-post.html
that it was impossible for the FFL selling the handgun to possibly know all of the laws and regs in the buyers home state to make sure the transfer was legal.

On another tangent,,the courts opinion stated that any delay incurred by having to have a handgun shipped from out of state to an FFL in the buyers home state for transfer to that buyer was trivial and not worth consideration in this case..
The wording they used was 'de minimis' (had to look that one up!)


There're other reasons the court gave for it's reasoning.
It's mostly about the NICS system being not as complete as it's sold as being.
Many State and Local regs are not in it and it's not as up to date as it should be. It's a FEDERAL background check. The court uses that as an argument in it's decision.

Certainly no lawyer here and not trying to pretend to be.
Just reading what's been written.

Regards,,
P. Mason

Actually makes sense. For example in NC you need a CCW or a pistol permit for each gun you buy (in addition to the NICS check) issued by the sheriff of the county you live in. Doubt it they know that in most states were only the NICS check is required. The Feds don't need to know the local laws, that requirement is passed to the FFL selling the firearm.

[b_san]

The real issue is that, since the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that was so important that it was individually guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment, all of these restrictions should be reviewed under a strict scrutiny standard versus the "oh well we'll give the government the benefit of the doubt" rational basis or even the slightly more restrictive intermediate scrutiny standard.

[LenS]

Originally Posted by Beemer-mark

Actually makes sense. For example in NC you need a CCW or a pistol permit for each gun you buy (in addition to the NICS check) issued by the sheriff of the county you live in. Doubt it they know that in most states were only the NICS check is required. The Feds don't need to know the local laws, that requirement is passed to the FFL selling the firearm.

No it doesn't make sense. Every FFL is given a packet of material by BATFE when they get their license. In that packet is a CD with ALL the laws/regs by state and city which impact the legal transfer of firearms. I know that it is likely that 99% of FFLs never break the plastic wrap on the CD, but the info is given to them to be compliant. Ignorance of the laws/regs/rules is totally willful by the dealers.

I'm sure nobody brought this up in court.

When I received my C&R FFL back in 1999, we received all the same materials that Dealer FFLs got back then (it was all books in 1999), so I have that book here in my bookcase and I can DL the latest version off atf.gov if I needed it.

[Runs With Gun]

Restricting gun sales to one's home state is the same sort of absurdity as the restriction on buying health insurance from other states.

It's just a means of driving up prices while limiting one's rights and travel safety.

[bushmaster1313]

In general, I can’t complain about the out of state purchase rule. But here is a hypothetical where it is a an infringement.

A person from out of state is on an extended visit in Vermont and wants to go armed, which is allowed without a carry permit in Vermont. That person is not allowed to go into a store and purchase a handgun like any resident of Vermont. This is a violation of equal protection

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Originally Posted by NovaJoe

They should have gone to Virginia - like Texas, a free state. Just across a bridge. The result would have been the same for them.

Virginia is in the 4th Circuit-a much more liberal circuit than the 5th. Makes sense they would go to Texas. The apparently got a bad pull regarding Judges. If they'd a gotten hold of Edith Jones you can bet the result would be different. If you don't know old Edith-think Scalia with a pocket book.

[2152hq]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

In general, I can’t complain about the out of state purchase rule. But here is a hypothetical where it is a an infringement.

A person from out of state is on an extended visit in Vermont and wants to go armed, which is allowed without a carry permit in Vermont. That person is not allowed to go into a store and purchase a handgun like any resident of Vermont. This is a violation of equal protection

Neither is the Vermont resident able to walk into a store in any other State and buy a handgun.

So it's Double Secret Violation of Equal Protection

They cancel out each other and that leaves us with 'Equal Protection for the purchase of a handgun out of state under the GCA68'.

Dean Vernon Wormer.

[S&WsRsweet]

Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER

Virginia is in the 4th Circuit-a much more liberal circuit than the 5th. Makes sense they would go to Texas. The apparently got a bad pull regarding Judges. If they'd a gotten hold of Edith Jones you can bet the result would be different. If you don't know old Edith-think Scalia with a pocket book.

Lol thanks I was needing a good laugh this am

[italiansport]

I did the Crossroads show over the past weekend and I don't know how many times I had to explain this out of state sales restriction to visitors from California. Based upon my experience the show was crawling with Californians! As an aside: As a collector I buy and sell older collectible firearms and business was brisk!
Jim

[JHW]

Originally Posted by BlueRidgeBoy

The guys who filed this suit did it to test the limits and see if they could push back this particular restriction on interstate handgun sales. They had a reasonable argument. After all, they won initially at the trial level in Federal District Court. Then they lost after the Justice Department appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

I'd like to see a case where the prohibition against non-FFLs sending handguns through the USPS to out of state FFLs is challenged. So long as I present a copy of the receiving FFL's license and the weapon is shipped to the licensee at the address listed on that license, why should I have to go through an FFL to ship a handgun through USPS? Funny thing is, if I want to ship a handgun to an out of state FFL without going through a local FFL, I can do so right now provided I ship via common carrier, e.g., FedEX or UPS. They typically cost double the post office. And that's the point: the system is structured to restrict interstate commerce by raising costs, but only to certain people, and thus, raises equal protection concerns.

I would too! I do not understand why the post office does not want to transport handguns from a non-FFL to an FFL other than to discourage the sale of firearms. Plus, it would give them additional revenue, which we all know they could use!!

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by JHW

I do not understand why the post office does not want to transport handguns from a non-FFL to an FFL other than to discourage the sale of firearms.

Let's don't make up stuff to attribute to the USPS. The postal service does not "discourage the sale of firearms". The USPS has no policy and has made no statements indicating they wish to discourage sales of firearms. If this was their goal, they wouldn't allow the shipment of long guns and antique firearms through the mails.

A better place to look for answers as to why handguns can't be shipped via the USPS would be the BATFE. The USPS structures its requirements for mailing firearms around rules and regulations set by the BATFE.

You can also attribute a lot of current firearms mailing restrictions to the Gun Control Act of 1968. The USPS cannot circumvent laws passed by Congress and signed into law by presidents.

[vigil617]

Originally Posted by ISCS Yoda

I wish I knew what SMDH means but I bet it's mean and funny.

It's more of that abbreviating stuff used commonly in social media, texts, and so forth, Senior Chief.

Often seen as "SMH" -- "smack my head," as in frustration.

ladder13 dresses it up a bit.

[ISCS Yoda]

Originally Posted by vigil617

It's more of that abbreviating stuff used commonly in social media, texts, and so forth, Senior Chief.

Often seen as "SMH" -- "smack my head," as in frustration.

ladder13 dresses it up a bit.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Kind of like "FACE PALM" then, I reckon!

Appreciate the education.

Side note:

A person from out of state is on an extended visit in Vermont and wants to go armed, which is allowed without a carry permit in Vermont. That person is not allowed to go into a store and purchase a handgun like any resident of Vermont. This is a violation of equal protection

I would have to do much more legal research than I care to in order to be certain that this was an "equal protection" violation. There is quite a bit of confusion over the term "protection" because there are many things a citizen of one state can do that a citizen visiting that state cannot do - because there is no "EQUAL BENEFIT" under the law in the 14th Amendment.