Out of State gun purchase restrictions upheld on appeal

Bugkiller99

Bugkiller99

Bronze Supporter
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
5,490
Location
North Florida
This case continues to wind its way through the judicial system. Initially a court in Texas declared the restriction on purchasing guns out of your state of residency invalid.
This has recently been reversed by the panel from theappellate court in Texas. Next step would be to request en banc hearing from appellate court, or review by SCOTUS.

Interesting statements from panel on questioning how an FFL can be knowledgeable about guns laws across the nation. Seems that burden would rest upon the purchaser. No different from taking my perfectly legal firearm in Florida and going to NJ with it and becoming a felon.


Out Of State Gun Sales Law Decided – Gunsandrifles.com
 
Register to hide this ad
I doubt that any attempt,to reverse the decision will be successful. When SCOTUS decided not to hear the case of Kolbe v. Maryland it fundamentally agreed that states had extensive control over their gun regulations as long as they honored the Heller Decision. In doing that it seems to me that SCOTUS set in motion a trend to assure states had control. So there is little to hang one's hat on when it comes to reversing a decision that seeks to constrict state control.
 
Ok....so it's been a long day and I'm probably not running on all 8 cylinders so help me out here! Is this saying that we can't buy from out of state?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Arik said:
Ok....so it's been a long day and I'm probably not running on all 8 cylinders so help me out here! Is this saying that we can't buy from out of state?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As I read it the horror line is you can buy fro out of state, but you will continue to have to accept deliver through an FFL in your state and so state regulations cannot be bypassed. So if you are inCA and order from PA you cannot avoid the CA eges on magazine size, safeties, etc.
 
Federal law that prohibits crossing state lines to take possession of a handgun. Instead, the gun must be shipped to an instate FFL.

The decision was written by Judge PRISCILLA R. OWEN, who was considered by many at the time of her appointment to be very conservative. I read the decision, and in my opinion, and as long as it is Constitutional for some states to be more restrictive than other states (for example a waiting period or a fingerprint background check) it is certainly Constitutional for the Federal Government to require that non-FFL's take possession of handguns from FFL's in their state of residence. Yes, it is a burden, but it does keep people from crossing state lines to buy a gun that they could not buy in their own state. This might be unpopular to many on this Forum, but in my humble opinion it is not a "Bad" decision by an activist court. In contrast, a law which said that you could not use the Internet to arrange for an out of state seller to ship it to an in state FFL -- that would be unconstitutional as a violation of free speech under the First Amendment. It might also be an unlawful restriction on interstate commerce

Link to the original decision from the Texas District Court here

Federal Circuit Decision Link here





Some quotes from the decision

They could not purchase the handguns of their choosing from the sole FFL in
the District of Columbia because that dealer has no inventory and only sells
firearms transferred from FFLs outside of the District.
Click to expand...

The district court enjoined the
enforcement of the challenged laws, concluding that they violated both the
Second Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth
Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Government has appealed.
Click to expand...

All concede that there is a compelling government interest in preventing
circumvention of the handgun laws of various states.
Click to expand...

The in-state sales requirement is narrowly tailored to assure that
an FFL who actually makes a sale of a handgun to someone other than another
FFL can reasonably be expected to know and comply with the laws of the state
in which the sale occurs.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is established federal law, and that is why I don't understand why it was not dismissed in the trial court. The plaintiff had no meaningful grounds to bring suit. Maybe the court docket was light and they wanted another case.
 
richardw said:
Yes, it is established federal law, and that is why I don't understand why it was not dismissed in the trial court. The plaintiff had no meaningful grounds to bring suit. Maybe the court docket was light and they wanted another case.
Click to expand...

Trial Court had good reason not to dismiss the case out of hand.
The trial Court said that the Government interest in preventing crime was compelling, but that under a strict scrutiny analysis, it did not show that the law was the least restrictive means of achieving the legitimate goal.

The case was brought by Alan Gura, the same lawyer who won the Heller case. In retrospect this was not a good case to bring as it makes law that can be used to support restrictive court decisions in the future.
 
While I think the law is a restriction or infringement of everyone's 2A rights as well as interstate commerce law, it is what it is and I have to agree with richardw that it will probably remain that way unfortunately.

It may also prove to be one of those be careful when choosing your battles cases.

I am luck to have a great FFL guy, when I travel I carry a copy of his FFL on my phone, easy to download and print for most places. Off the gun goes to be waiting for me when I get home.
 
I reside in two different states, on properties that are 300 miles apart from each other. My official state of residence is PA, which is where I spend about 7 months out of the year, with the rest of my time being spent in Ohio. That means that I am prevented from purchasing local firearms when I'm in Ohio, without sending them to PA prior to taking delivery. It's a bit of a hassle for me, but is small in comparison to what it could be like. I'm not pleased, by any means, but it's only and afternoon's drive to collect my purchase.

It's not ideal for the purchasers, nor the sellers that reside near state lines, and do business across those lines. I'd like to see the restriction removed, but at what cost to State's Rights? The snowball effect could be greater than the small victory.
 
This is the key to the issue. They don't want to pay another $125 plus whatever other fee the receiving FFL wants to tack on. As the only game in DC, the couple were at the mercy of the FFL. I haven't read anything about the gun they wanted to buy being prohibited in DC . . .

On June 21, 2014, the Hansons visited Mance's gun shop in Texas but could not by law take possession of a handgun there. Mance could have shipped handguns bought by the couple in Texas to the District's only FFL that handles interstate transfers, but according to the complaint, the dealer charges $125 per transfer in addition to shipping costs and other fees. This, concluded a lower court in 2015, was a burden on the Hanson's Second Amendment rights as well as due process under the Fifth Amendment. That court ruling was reversed by the panel this week.
Click to expand...
 
^^That was my question: Is the gun "of their choosing" illegal in DC, or was it a matter of the "only" FFL refusing to get/receive the firearm? If it is merely a matter of not wanting to pay the fees, that is not necessarily a 2A matter.

Sounds like if you want to live in DC where it is difficult and expensive to buy the gun you want--you pay the price of living in DC.
 
stringpicker said:
I reside in two different states, on properties that are 300 miles apart from each other. My official state of residence is PA, which is where I spend about 7 months out of the year, with the rest of my time being spent in Ohio.
Click to expand...
Help me out here. How isn't that dual residency? :confused:
 
Muss Muggins said:
You can't have dual residency of a state. Have to pick one. This is generally dictated by where your driver license is. As an example, if you establish residency in Missouri, you have to get a Missouri driver license and surrender your other license . . .
Click to expand...
Have I for years misunderstood the following? :confused:

ATF said:
ATF has previously addressed the eligibility of individuals to acquire firearms who maintain residences in more than one State. Federal regulations at 27 CFR 478.11 (definition of State of Residence), Example 2, clarify that a U.S. citizen with homes in two States may, during the period of time the person actually resides in a particular State, purchase a firearm in that State.
Click to expand...

from: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2010-6-state-residence/download
 
Last edited:
Walkingwolf said:
That was my understanding, but the ATF can, and has shifted rules. It is possible to have a drivers license in two states, it is common in Florida. They have a permanent, and resident license, unless that has changed.
Click to expand...

I kicked around this website for a while and couldn't find anything close to what you're talking about. If you're a member of the Driver License Compact, which Florida is, you can only have one driver license . . .

Moving to Florida

Edit: Searched "Can a Florida resident have two driver licenses?" Found this, from 2009 . . .

New rule requires part-timers to surrender state driver license to get one in Florida
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Wash State mag ban case, Gator's Guns update
Replies
6
Views
444
Racer X
R
GaryS
A Win In PA
Replies
4
Views
671
ladder13
L
biku324
Missouri Law 'Stay' Upheld
Replies
0
Views
369
biku324
biku324
GaryS
Bruen Keeps on Giving
Replies
4
Views
846
GaryS
GaryS
BC38
Can't we just ENFORCE the law?!?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
Muss Muggins
Muss Muggins

Latest posts

Back
Top