SAF Challenges Interstate Handgun Sales Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bubbles

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
3,148
Location
Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
:D :D :D

SAF CHALLENGES INTERSTATE HANDGUN SALES BAN

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Virginia challenging the constitutionality of federal and Virginia provisions barring handgun sales to non-residents.

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Michelle Lane, a District of Columbia resident who cannot legally purchase handguns because there are no retail firearms dealers inside the District. The Supreme Court's 2008 Heller ruling struck down the District's handgun ban, confirming that individuals have a constitutional right to possess handguns.

SAF and Lane are represented by attorney Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, who won both the Heller ruling and last year's Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Named as defendants are Attorney General Eric Holder and W. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of the Virginia State Police.

"This is an important issue in the era of the national instant background check," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "The NICS check should allow law-abiding citizens like Miss Lane to exercise their Second Amendment rights regardless their place of residence."

"Americans don't check their constitutional rights at the state line," said Gura. "And since Michelle Lane is legally entitled to possess firearms, forcing her to seek a non-existing D.C. dealer to buy a handgun is pointless when perfectly legitimate options exist minutes across the Potomac River."

"The Supreme Court has ruled that District residents have an individual right, protected by the Constitution, to have a handgun in their home," Gottlieb noted. "The high court has also ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states. Existing state and federal statutes violate both the spirit and letter of recent court rulings and the Constitution, and our lawsuit seeks to remedy that situation."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
 
Ooooohhh that's nice to hear! I know the fight will be long and risky, but I am just very VERY happy to hear someone on the national stage bringing a serious challenge to a part of GCA '68! Heller, McDonald, ... Lane??? That has a nice ring to it! :)
 
I think they are going to lose this one, due to the interstate commerce clause. In this case, selling to a resident of another state, I would say the interstate clause actually applies. I would think the SAF would have a better case to fight against the Federal government regulation of dealers selling to same state residents.

I wish the US Supreme Court would interpret the interstate commerce clause to limit the Federal government regulation of anything to ONLY the actual time it is moving in interstate commerce. Once the article arrives at it's destination state, Federal government regulation should cease.
 
I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that legal logic is on our side. Because what is the use of having a right to own a handgun if there is no place to buy one? I bet the reason there aren't any FFLs in DC is because of DC government regulations. Can it really be constitutional to manipulate laws that end up with a de facto ban on a constitutional right?

Go get them Gura!!!!
 
While I see the interstate commerce clause, I don't think that it applies when the area involved is a state and a district. It would be nice to pick up a handgun in another state without having to mail it to a local FFL.
 
As usual, Attorney Gura has researched carefully. All of the 50 states have licensed firearms dealers within they're borders. However the District of Columbia apparently does not. Thus the residents therein cannot excercise a protected civil right. It will be an interesting case.
 
.


I wonder if this is the reason Charles Sykes closed his gunshop, to make this lawsuit possible?



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rchase-handguns-sole-dealer-seeks-new-office/

D.C. Residents Unable to Purchase Handguns After Sole Dealer Seeks New Office

Published May 06, 2011

| FoxNews.com

t's been three years since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the nation's toughest gun control law, the one in Washington, D.C. But a de facto ban has taken effect ever since the city's only firearms dealer stopped registering guns.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-sole-dealer-seeks-new-office/#ixzz1M17IMOpm
Click to expand...

.
 
.
NavyLT: I think they are going to lose this one, due to the interstate commerce clause. In this case, selling to a resident of another state, I would say the interstate clause actually applies. I would think the SAF would have a better case to fight against the Federal government regulation of dealers selling to same state residents.

I wish the US Supreme Court would interpret the interstate commerce clause to limit the Federal government regulation of anything to ONLY the actual time it is moving in interstate commerce. Once the article arrives at it's destination state, Federal government regulation should cease.
Click to expand...




So who thinks this is going to go well for pro-2nd Amendment folks?



.
 
I love it and it's about time!!! State residency requirements are just soooo last year!

Sent from my orbital space time capsule.
 
So who thinks this is going to go well for pro-2nd Amendment folks?
Click to expand...

Wish I did. The 2nd Amendment specifies that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. While acquiring a firearm is a prerequisite to keeping and bearing it, I think the Court will rule 5-4 that Ms. Lane has no right to purchase a handgun. :uhoh:
 
.

Wish I did. The 2nd Amendment specifies that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. While acquiring a firearm is a prerequisite to keeping and bearing it, I think the Court will rule 5-4 that Ms. Lane has no right to purchase a handgun.
Click to expand...




Isn't that like saying you have the right to free speech but you can't purchase pens or paper?



.
 
The only DC FFL, Mr. Sykes, lost his lease so now there is a de facto "ban" on handguns in DC. Akthough Sykes says he's trying to find a new location, DC's zoning regs are so strict it's taking him time to find another location.

Alan Gura doesn't bring lawsuits he doesn't think he can win.
 
So who thinks this is going to go well for pro-2nd Amendment folks?
Click to expand...

I think all of these lawsuits are good for us. This is what we expected to see post Heller. Some we will win, some we will lose, and some we may simply redefine the rules a little for the next one.

This is what we wanted in a Heller victory, piles of lawsuits, don't start flinching now....
 
I think they are going to lose this one, due to the interstate commerce clause.
Click to expand...

The interstate commerce clause is used as justification for jurisdiction. It does not envelope merit or automatically bless it under any standard of scrutiny when put against a constitutional right.

I think the SAF has this one. It will just be a time consuming process.
 
If this law suit is successful, how would the purchase by a DC resident work? A Virgina FFL would be allowed to sell the handguns to DC residents, but they would still need a handgun license from DC before any sale; right?

Would the likely remedy in Virgina apply to potential purchasers from all other states or only DC?

A friend lives in NY and he tried to buy a rifle in SC, NC, MD while on vacation and he was told by FFLs in each state - NO! Apparently, for NY residents purchase of a rifle or shotgun is OK in Penn with lengthy waiting periods in CT and NJ.

...all this is pretty dumb of you ask me.
 
I don't see Justice Kennedy overturning SCOTUS's history of Commerce Clause cases in this instance. There is no ban on buying handguns in another state, they just have to be transfered to an FFL in one's home state before the buyer can take actual possession.

As to the de facto argument, courts won't interfere in such matters. They won't try to integrate schools where De Facto school segregation prevails, only De Jure segregation. Simply because the private sector does not fill a particular void is not reason enough for the courts to overturn many years of case law in re; the Commerce Clause.

Don't get me wrong, I hope Mr. Gura prevails in this case, I just don't see it happening under our body of law brought about by SCOTUS's own precedents. I don't rule it out given that we've had a fairly activist court for the past 11 years or so, but lately whenever the Court has overturned judicial precedent it has always been on a 5-4 vote. And Justice Kennedy was always vote #5. It will be pretty much up to him, and he just loves being the swing-vote. This will be a 5-4 decision, but I'll bet Kennedy will vote for the status quo. I hope I'm mistaken, but if I had to bet...
 
.
I don't see Justice Kennedy overturning SCOTUS's history of Commerce Clause cases in this instance. There is no ban on buying handguns in another state, they just have to be transfered to an FFL in one's home state before the buyer can take actual possession.

As to the de facto argument, courts won't interfere in such matters. They won't try to integrate schools where De Facto school segregation prevails, only De Jure segregation. Simply because the private sector does not fill a particular void is not reason enough for the courts to overturn many years of case law in re; the Commerce Clause.

Don't get me wrong, I hope Mr. Gura prevails in this case, I just don't see it happening under our body of law brought about by SCOTUS's own precedents. I don't rule it out given that we've had a fairly activist court for the past 11 years or so, but lately whenever the Court has overturned judicial precedent it has always been on a 5-4 vote. And Justice Kennedy was always vote #5. It will be pretty much up to him, and he just loves being the swing-vote. This will be a 5-4 decision, but I'll bet Kennedy will vote for the status quo. I hope I'm mistaken, but if I had to bet...
Click to expand...





That doesn't look good.



.
 
Consider Article IV US Constitution (Not ammendment, Article). I think there is room here for a full faith acknowledgement of another states acts, licenses and records.

Maybe not in this particular case, but??? That is, If she cannot purchase in DC, she should be able to purchased and be licensed in any state (that would allow it notwithstanding the challenged Federal law), and be good to go.
 
Legally speaking, it's probable that the interstate commerce clause could put reasonsonable regulations on the firearms commerce. What is not legally probable is that restrictions that make it impossible to obtain a firearm through interstate commerce would be deemed reasonable. 2A would very likely be deemed on equal footing within the constitution as commerce powers, and in this instance might very well trump commerce, since (in general) specific powers>general powers.

SCOTUS should (and would, IMHO) require that laws creating such a situation void to the extent that they make it impossible to obtain a firearm.

However, GCA '68 is sweeping, and portions alluded to in the McDonald opinion were referred to as "longstanding", which is not good for us. However, I believe SCOTUS would either strike part of the ban, knowing congress would probably pass a constitutional version of it quickly, or would at least carve it up a little.

Please remember though, 4 Justices utterly ignored Heller precedent in the McDonald case, and would likely do so again, given the chance.
 
Cliffnotes:

1. They make some "Equal Protection" claims, meaning the plaintiffs are suing because they are unable to make use of rights (to buy a gun) that are given to others (any resident of a state) due to an improper "classification" (the plaintiffs allege that the suspect "class" is the location of residency.

I think these claims may be difficult to carry, but it's hard to say

2. They make a "Substantive Due Process" claim. This means that, by operation of the interstate sales ban, the federal government is denying a right deemed fundamental to the plaintiffs.

I think this claim is strong.

3. They are claiming a violation of the 2A RKBA.

This claim is also strong.



These are just my opinions, but there they are for what they are worth.

Best of luck! Now can we strike down the stupid handgun shipping ban through USPS? Obviously it isn't a safety concern as long as it's going to a dealer, or if it's a long gun, so what's the bother if the average Joe is allowed to send it?

RmeJu
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Librarian
  • Locked
SAF, Calguns Foundation challenges California handgun ban scheme
Replies
1
Views
385
MudCamper
M
Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
Saf sues in maryland over handgun permit denial
Replies
18
Views
2K
Dead
D
Librarian
  • Locked
New Gura suit vs DC on 3/9
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
ServiceSoon
S
W
  • Locked
Saf Alert
Replies
1
Views
480
Standing Wolf
S
D
  • Locked
SAF Sues in New York to Void 'Good Cause' Carry Permit Requirement
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
TrickyDick
TrickyDick
Back
Top