Ad Here

Should Guns Be Sold To Out Of State Residents?

A decision not to grant a retrial in a challenge to the federal law barring handgun sales to out-of-state residents sparked intense debate in one of the nation’s federal appeals courts last week.

The judges on the U.S. 5th Circuit were divided on overturning a decision by a three-judge panel that supported the gun law earlier this year. They narrowly voted 8-7 against granting a rare en banc hearing by the full circuit.

The thin majority agreed that the longtime ban on selling handguns over the counter to out-of-state residents is in the public interest. The minority vehemently disagreed with the concept, which predated today’s modern instant criminal background check process, holding it was against the Second Amendment and was confusing when compared to the ability to sell rifles and shotguns without such prohibitions.

The legal challenge came from Andrew and Tracey Hanson from Washington, D.C. who tried to buy handguns from a federally licensed firearms dealer in Texas but could not due to a federal law adopted in the 1960s. Together with the FFL holder, Frederic Mance, the couple joined with gun rights advocates in taking the government on, arguing that since the advent of the National Instant Check System it makes no sense to perpetuate a ban on interstate transfers of handguns.

A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit in January disagreed with that concept, holding that handguns often have additional regulatory pitfalls in many states, and that gun dealers cannot be expected to be familiar with those in distant areas. While eight of the 15 members of the Circuit agreed with that ruling last week, those jurists who did not were vocal in their opposition, penning over 20 pages of strong dissent with the majority’s opinion.

Judge James Ho argued that the ban on interstate handgun sales effectively creates a federal waiting period and defacto tax on pistol and revolver sales for those seeking to buy one outside of their home state as the gun has to first be transferred from the seller to a local dealer, which takes both time and money. “For example, in this case, the record establishes that the only dealer with a federal firearms license (FFL) in the District of Columbia imposes a $125 transfer fee,” said Ho, going on to expound that if such a rule was done for other items, it would never pass Constitutional muster.

“Imagine that, to help states enforce their anti-obscenity laws, Congress outlawed the interstate sale of books. No court would uphold such a law,” said Ho. “After all, laws that impose broad, categorical bans—rather than narrow, precise restrictions—are by definition not narrowly tailored. And that is so whether the Government bans books or handguns.” Instead, the judge held that the government could easily adopt less restrictive alternatives to ensure compliance with state handgun laws than an outright ban on sales to those who are from out of state.

“The Government’s proposed prophylaxis—to protect against the violations of the few, we must burden the constitutional rights of the many—turns the Second Amendment on its head,” said Ho, a 2018 appointment by President Trump who formerly clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “Our Founders crafted a Constitution to promote the liberty of the individual, not the convenience of the Government.”

Others were more candid in their assessment. “The Second Amendment is neither second class, nor second rate, nor second tier,” said Judge Don Willett, who agreed with the notion that the right to keep and bear arms was something of “the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bill of Rights.”

The challenge, Mance vs. Sessions, may be further appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

source: guns.com

18 Comments

  • William L. Ramsburg

    YES!! WITH PROPER LAWFUL PROCEDURE’S!!

    Reply

    • Jerry

      But the 2nd amendment does not state with exception, so as it stands the constitution is very clear that the government cannot create restrictions on the 2nd amendment without being in violation, the Gun Control Act is in itself a violation of the 2nd amendment, there are groups fighting that very thing presentlu

      Reply

      • Uzi Kattan

        The 1968 Gun Control Act was a Nazi law o 1938 which was translated into English and enacted by Thomas Dodd and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson. It’s chilling to know that 23 years after defeating the Nazis, one o their laws is enacted in the US.
        Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has the proof of this

        Reply

    • The Redhawk

      Bulls Eye

      Reply

  • David

    Yes, people can buy, trade, give etc. any gun to anyone …2nd is CLEAR……

    Reply

  • John Siemens

    What part of “shall not be infringed” do these idiots not understand. One must question their ability to understand simple words and their oath to protect the Constitution.

    Reply

    • Kabe2611

      You said it well John. They are idiots and they do not understand simple words. They understand “it’s a liberal issue; It must be valid.” If liberal Democraps started laying down on railroad tracks and stating “it’s the liberal thing to do,” I bet the farm there would be a line of volunteers to fill in the spots when they got vaporized by the trains.

      Reply

    • The Redhawk

      YEAH these are the SAME MORONS and DISHONEST IDIOTS that every 2 or 6 years SWEAR on the CONSTITUTION and forget in 1 minute

      Reply

  • The Redhawk

    With Name address ,SS number, drivers license for FBI check what difference where guns are BOUGHT??? Gun Stores can submit info and the FBI usually responds within a half hour….. ” what difference does it make” other than price???

    Reply

  • Maria Kelly

    Absolutely! Your background check is the same regardless which state you make your purchase. Shop around for the best price!

    Reply

  • Dr. Mike Reeder

    These “majority” judges are full of sh*t! The Constitution they all swore to uphold and defend means NOTHING to them! Put them in jail until they re-learn what they were elected to do!

    Reply

  • rjdmanfredi

    Reading Truman’s letters a century later, … .
    He quipped in one of his last wartime letters about how he’d grown almost fond of his artillery pieces. “If the government would let me have one of them, I’d pay for it and pay the transportation home just to let it sit in my front yard and rust,” he said. “Men…become very much attached to their guns,” he added. “It’s like parting with old friends who’ve stood by me through thick and thin.”
    “Bess Wallace had stood by him through thick and thin too,” Crocker noted. “She married Captain Truman on 28 June 1919.”
    So there was at least ONE DEMOCRAT who could read .That is correct ,” … shall not be infringed .” was not “…shall not be infringed except canons .”
    COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS , AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE , GUNS OFF THE STREETS . Yes, I heard this years ago . I forget , was I sitting on my mother’s lap , or was I trapped in a high chair ? Any way , there I was , and there was that vile tasting green stuff that passed for baby food . Some idiot made them take the sugar out of it, so it tasted like manure . Mom would add some yellow stuff , probably pear or apple ,and say now we are going to play aero plane . MMMMM ZZZZ, MMMM ,ZZZZ, open wide ,common sense gun law coming in, no gun violence , gun safety . Don’t be fooled, there is no such thing as common sense gun law , against gun violence , gun safety. The real problem is the crazy person using it . You see if you asked a hundred people , on the law , and safety problem, all would agree ; ask about the violence ,and between five and ten percent would hit you between the eyes because they were born genetically ‘crazy’ – bi-polars , manic depressives , Aspergers , schizophrenics , and other medical categories – the rest are self made crazy from steroids, drug use , and drug abuse . Those people need to be confined .We know who they are after the fourth or fifth grade .The parents ,aunts, uncles, neighbors, school teachers know too .IF THEY ARE NOT CONFINED , THEY MUST BE REGISTERED .
    Now lets talk about ” military grade” weapons . This is the new language to ban semi autos .
    THE ONLY WEAPONS THAT NEED TO BE REGISTERED ARE THOSE THAT WERE STOLEN , SO THEY CAN BE RETURNED TO THEIR RIGHTFUL OWNERS . THERE S/B A MINIMUM MANDATORY TEN YEAR FEDERAL SENTENCE FOR POSSESION OF A STOLEN FIREARM . CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO NICS ,DATA BASE FOR STOLEN WEAPONS . CAL IN MAKE MODEL , CAL SER NUM .
    YES EVERYONE S/B ABLE TO BUY OUT OF STATE UNLESS ON THE FEDERAL “CRAZY’ REGISTRATION LIST .

    Reply

  • PappaDoc

    Especially if a person has a CCW they should be allowed to purchase a handgun anywhere as an FBI check is not required, the License number is placed in the block where the FBI okay number goes, no phone call required. If a person has no license the they should be able to purchase anywhere with an FBI check, I believe this will be overturned in the Supreme Court. I freaked out when the 9th Circuit Court (in the left coast) overturned a ruling in a lower Court in Hawaii about open carry and said every American that is able to own a firearm has the right to open carry that firearm for self defense. I love it.

    Reply

  • William Collins

    This is another BS law that does nothing but make morons feel good. It goes on the list of other useless ineffective laws that have done nothing to stop crime including: laws against concealed weapons, shotguns cut less than 18″, rifles cut less than 16″, handguns possessed by anyone under 21, long guns possessed by anyone under 18, fake assault weapons possessed by anyone under 21, open carry of weapons, the carrying of guns in school zones, banks, etc. For a person intent on committing a felony, such as armed robbery, murder, assault, etc., none of these laws will stop them. Do the people who pass these really think a potential felon really stops to consider the penalty for breaking them when they are going to be facing multiple years to life in prison, or the death penalty? Where has a murder been stopped because someone was terrified of a misdemeanor concealed carry charge?

    Reply

  • Me....

    Appears it’s a violation of the Constitution 2nd and also violates Inter State Commerce. If you’re not a criminal then it does not matter what state you live in.. to buy and sell in or out of state. That’s what the background checks were supposedly invented for…

    Reply

  • James HIgginbotham

    of course they should, what part of DO NOT INFRINGE THOSE COMMUNIST DEMORATS AND SOME RINOS NOT UNDERSTAND IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

    Reply

  • Charles Michalek

    we do have a bunch of morons as judges that don’t understand anything ,as long as it satisfies their own interest…. they don’t have a clue too what the people in this country agree or don’t agree with .. LIBTARDS , DUMACRATS , JUST PLAIN MORONS ..

    Reply

Leave a Reply