**UPDATED**Federal judge strikes down handgun ban!

[ladder13]

Interesting case won by Alan Gura, in Texas court. Federal judge rules interstate transfers of handgun ban, unconstitutional.
Will you be able to buy direct from an out of state FFL?

Federal court rules interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional - National gun rights | Examiner.com

BREAKING: Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban - The Truth About Guns


“It is bizarre and irrational to destroy the national market for an item that Americans have a fundamental right to purchase,” attorney Alan Gura observed in a triumphant CCRKBA media advisory. “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.”

 

[Dillinger-63]

While visiting my son's graduation from the Air Force in Texas, we checked out a few local gun shops. I came across a gun that I was interested in and when I spoke to the clerk I asked him what the wait period was and he said, "There is none." Thinking I might buy this gun, he then asked my what state I was from and I told him Illinois. He said, "Nope, I can sell guns just to folks that live in Texas. I learned something new that day. Will this ruling affect that?

 

[ladder13]

While visiting my son's graduation from the Air Force in Texas, we checked out a few local gun shops. I came across a gun that I was interested in and when I spoke to the clerk I asked him what the wait period was and he said, "There is none." Thinking I might buy this gun, he then asked my what state I was from and I told him Illinois. He said, "Nope, I can sell guns just to folks that live in Texas. I learned something new that day.

Currently, he cannot sell you a handgun unless it ships to an FFL in Ill and is legal in Ill.
He could allow you to purchase a long gun and take with you, if legal in Ill, but the shop may have a policy against that.

I may be wrong but this is how I understand the laws as currently written.

This has a ways to go before going nationwide, would take a SCOTUS ruling, I believe.

The experts will be by shortly I'm sure.

There's a long way to go.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Generally speaking, a ruling in federal court becomes precedent within that court's jurisdiction (pending appellate review, of course). Thus, one US District Court may enter a judgment in a case within its jurisdiction, while another US District Court may enter an essentially opposite ruling in another case within its jurisdiction. Each ruling stands within that federal court district until and unless a higher court (US Court of Appeals, US Supreme Court) takes up the matter and enters a finding that becomes precedent for all districts within purview.

Short version, in this case it ain't likely to be over until the Supremes put together some lyrics and accompanying music to perform the song. Then there will be other battles over the exact meaning of every word and phrase, every stanza and verse, every note in every melody.

I am not a lawyer, but I think the above sounds pretty darned good for a broke down old retired cop that pounds leather hides for a living!

 

[Calaveras Slim]

When I was 18, I ordered guns from Ruger and S&W, had them shipped straight to my door. GCA 68 changed all that. I sure hope this holds up.

 

[vigil617]

Generally speaking, a ruling in federal court becomes precedent within that court's jurisdiction (pending appellate review, of course). Thus, one US District Court may enter a judgment in a case within its jurisdiction, while another US District Court may enter an essentially opposite ruling in another case within its jurisdiction. Each ruling stands within that federal court district until and unless a higher court (US Court of Appeals, US Supreme Court) takes up the matter and enters a finding that becomes precedent for all districts within purview.

Short version, in this case it ain't likely to be over until the Supremes put together some lyrics and accompanying music to perform the song. Then there will be other battles over the exact meaning of every word and phrase, every stanza and verse, every note in every melody.

I am not a lawyer, but I think the above sounds pretty darned good for a broke down old retired cop that pounds leather hides for a living!

I'm not a lawyer, either, Lobo, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Seriously, though, I think what you've said here is accurate. As a corollary, though: a ruling in one Federal District can influence subsequent rulings in other Federal Districts that haven't ruled on the same legal issues at stake. The authority of the first ruling isn't binding in other districts, as you said, but it provides a kind of support for cases being argued later in other districts. Attorneys in a later case, while researching the issue, will note the existence of the first case in the other district and use it either as support for, or argument against, their position. (The technical term is "persuasive authority" as opposed to "binding authority.")

We saw this happening just last year in the gay-marriage issue, as federal district courts appeared to take the prior actions of other district courts into account in ruling on cases in their own jurisdictions.

I guess this is just to say that in the opinion of this non-attorney observer, the fact that the federal district court has ruled against the ban on interstate sales of handguns is a good thing for future cases involving the same issue that may come up in other districts.

 

[Gamecock]

So often, we get to rejoice only in stopping some new, nefarious restriction. It's great to actually have a rollback in nefarious restrictions.

 

[peepaw]

Seeing as how I spend most of my work week in other states, I would love to see this stand.

 

[sgtsandman]

This is good news for us all but the fat lady hasn't sung yet. I imagine this will run all the way up to the Supreme Court before it sticks. The DOJ isn't about to let a standing ban go without a fight.

 

[gordon21]

We have some lawyers here on the forum. How does this work?

Eric Holder was named as a defendant in the case. He will be out of a job within days and no longer authorized to represent the feds in court.

In most civil type hearings, if a defendant doesn't show up in court, the plaintiff usually "wins" by default, correct??

Can his replacement continue this case, even though she will not be specifically named in the original case?

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Holder's replacement will take his place in the appeals process. I cannot say for sure if the case "name" will change. The other defendant is the head of BATF so Holder's being replaced doesn't really have a significant impact on the case itself.

Suits involving Federal agencies routinely name the agency head and not the agency itself. I used to know why but I have forgotten.....
==========================================

I think that the smart, political move would be for DOJ and ATF to not appeal. As it stands now it's a local, Federal court order and, arguably, it affects people in the Northern District of Texas, whatever its borders might be, or perhaps all of Texas. If that is the case a New Yorker in Houston can buy a Glock in Houston. Getting it to his home in New York without breaking NY law is the buyer's problem.

If DoJ and ATF let it drop there is a very narrow geographic area of impact. If the 5th Circuit rules then the whole 5th Circuit is affected. When the SCOTUS hears it the whole country is affected and I think the ruling is so well written that we could see a 6 to 3 victory on this one at SCOTUS.

During the pendency of the appeal, however, nothing changes.
=============================================

This does not change the rules on shipping guns interstate; it changes the rules on retail purchases of guns face to face. Presently, if I am in a Charlotte, NC, gunshop, as I was a couple of years ago, thinking about buying an AK-47 that I liked (happily, I did not buy it), I could have paid for it right there and taken it straight out of the store. Had I bought the proper carrying case for it I could have put it on the plane and brought it home. Done and done.

OTOH, had I wanted to buy a S&W M10 at that store, I could not have paid for it on the spot and taken it home. I could have purchased it, but the handgun would still have had to be shipped to my local FFL for acceptance and then re-delivery to me at his Texas location. This present case eliminates that follow up shipping requirement. I could take the M10 with me and transport it to my home on my own, no additional fees or restrictions would apply.

I point this out to ensure that nobody thinks this ruling has any affect on the auction and other interstate sales with which we are familiar.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Sidebar - the Federal government never defaults in a lawsuit due to a change in administration at any level.

 

[GaryS]

Excellent explanation.

Holder's replacement will take his place in the appeals process. I cannot say for sure if the case "name" will change. The other defendant is the head of BATF so Holder's being replaced doesn't really have a significant impact on the case itself.

Suits involving Federal agencies routinely name the agency head and not the agency itself. I used to know why but I have forgotten.....
==========================================

I think that the smart, political move would be for DOJ and ATF to not appeal. As it stands now it's a local, Federal court order and, arguably, it affects people in the Northern District of Texas, whatever its borders might be, or perhaps all of Texas. If that is the case a New Yorker in Houston can buy a Glock in Houston. Getting it to his home in New York without breaking NY law is the buyer's problem.

If DoJ and ATF let it drop there is a very narrow geographic area of impact. If the 5th Circuit rules then the whole 5th Circuit is affected. When the SCOTUS hears it the whole country is affected and I think the ruling is so well written that we could see a 6 to 3 victory on this one at SCOTUS.

During the pendency of the appeal, however, nothing changes.
=============================================

This does not change the rules on shipping guns interstate; it changes the rules on retail purchases of guns face to face. Presently, if I am in a Charlotte, NC, gunshop, as I was a couple of years ago, thinking about buying an AK-47 that I liked (happily, I did not buy it), I could have paid for it right there and taken it straight out of the store. Had I bought the proper carrying case for it I could have put it on the plane and brought it home. Done and done.

OTOH, had I wanted to buy a S&W M10 at that store, I could not have paid for it on the spot and taken it home. I could have purchased it, but the handgun would still have had to be shipped to my local FFL for acceptance and then re-delivery to me at his Texas location. This present case eliminates that follow up shipping requirement. I could take the M10 with me and transport it to my home on my own, no additional fees or restrictions would apply.

I point this out to ensure that nobody thinks this ruling has any affect on the auction and other interstate sales with which we are familiar.

 

[Tom K]

When I was 18, I ordered guns from Ruger and S&W, had them shipped straight to my door. GCA 68 changed all that. I sure hope this holds up.

This ruling would have absolutely no effect on that. You still couldn't have guns shipped directly to you.

It's still a favorable ruling for us though if upheld, as it would allow people to buy handguns out of state in person, without having to have it shipped to an FFL in their home state. Would certainly make travel to out-of-state gun shows more worthwhile.

 

[GaryS]

Another question. This decision applies to FFL sales to none residents. What about private sales? I wonder if those would be covered or if more litigation would be needed? I would guess that would still be prohibited because the opinion relies heavily on so called "Brady checks", which aren't generally required for private sales.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Another question. This decision applies to FFL sales to none residents. What about private sales? I wonder if those would be covered or if more litigation would be needed? I would guess that would still be prohibited because the opinion relies heavily on so called "Brady checks", which aren't generally required for private sales.

For the record, I have never engaged in a firearms transfer across state lines without the services of a FFL holder, as required by GCA-68. Never, under any circumstances.

There! That settles that! It has appeared on the internet so it must be accepted as the absolute truth by everyone, everywhere.

 

[ladder13]

A tidbit to get in for your consumption, if I may.

A retired Supreme Court officer I know has opined that a favorable ruling in the Texas Circuit Court would be binding nationwide before it ever got to SCOTUS. Of course, SCOTUS would want to jump in for sure after that.

Here's his reason. THIS ruling, or that of the Circuit Court, to be specific, would declare a FEDERAL law unconstitutional, unlike it declaring a State law unconstitutional.
Thereby, it would affect not just that specific jurisdiction but the whole country.

My interpretation of his comments may be just a tad off.

Thoughts?

 

[vigil617]

A tidbit to get in for your consumption, if I may.

A retired Supreme Court officer I know has opined that a favorable ruling in the Texas Circuit Court would be binding nationwide before it ever got to SCOTUS. Of course, SCOTUS would want to jump in for sure after that.

Here's his reason. THIS ruling, or that of the Circuit Court, to be specific, would declare a FEDERAL law unconstitutional, unlike it declaring a State law unconstitutional.
Thereby, it would affect not just that specific jurisdiction but the whole country.

My interpretation of his comments may be just a tad off.

Thoughts?

Did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, ladder?

You raise a very interesting point indeed.

 

[Jessie]

I don't know, wouldn't it just apply to the Fed ban in that particular district? Otherwise, why have separate district courts?
It would certainly help as precedent elsewhere, though.
I'm not a lawyer either, so what do I know?

 

[GaryS]

Yes, it would only apply in the district of Northern Texas, unless upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of appeals (5CA). Then it would apply in all of the states that comprise that circuit.

Outside of the Northern District of Texas, it would be persuasive, not precedent. The difference being that courts are generally bound by precedent, but only may take notice of an out of district opinion.

I don't know, wouldn't it just apply to the Fed ban in that particular district? Otherwise, why have separate district courts?
It would certainly help as precedent elsewhere, though.
I'm not a lawyer either, so what do I know?