Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban Declared Unconstitutional

[Boss .300 winmag]

 

[splashcaster]

just FYI for those talking about buying guns in other states, this doesn't mean much for washington...don't get me wrong, it's a great start, but unfortunately a district court in texas won't have much influence for our courts. Even if it stands in the court of appeals, washington is in the 9th district, this goes to the 5th. Not binding at all on washington unless it hits the supreme court or the 9th circuit, but still good news

[Knocker of rocks]

It'll probably get fast tracked to SCOTUS

[Bean Counter]

The point is that going across state lines - after this decision for BOTH handguns and long guns - you can avoid the WA state DOL/DOR (can't remember which) reporting (the registration scheme), and in OR, you can avoid WA state sales tax. 

Technically anything purchased in another state with a negative disparity of sales tax compared to WA is liable for Washington state "Use Tax" when brought into the state. 

[Fl0und3rz]

just FYI for those talking about buying guns in other states, this doesn't mean much for washington...don't get me wrong, it's a great start, but unfortunately a district court in texas won't have much influence for our courts. Even if it stands in the court of appeals, washington is in the 9th district, this goes to the 5th. Not binding at all on washington unless it hits the supreme court or the 9th circuit, but still good news

This is true to some extent, insofar as there is a split between the 9th and 5th circuit (remains to be seen without more research), and insofar as a dispute is brought before a Federal judge in the 9th circuit. 

That is, while there is one body of Federal law and there is a judge that said that body of law is unconstitutional, the likelihood that there exists another judge in the 9th circuit that would decide differently means that we will not likely see OR and ID rushing to sell handguns to WA residents without requiring shipment to WA state FFLs.

The practical effect is that it would likely require the ATF to issue an opinion that they would not enforce the applicable sections on interstate handgun sales (or SCOTUS agreeing with the 5th circuit) before border state FFLs would sell to WA residents without shipping to an in state FFL.

Visit TX (in the 5th circuit) and purchase a handgun there.

In any event, still good news as you note.

[Bean Counter]

Idk much about ATF policy but I can tell you that IRS has long enforced one tax law in District X and another in District Y. This is for when a tax case originates in a US District Court and not in either the US Tax Court or the Fed Claims Court. I'll need to brush up on my Con law but I think that if the taxpayer brings the case in the Court of Federal Claims or Tax Court that such a decision binds the IRS nationwide.

The #1 reason the SCOTUS grants a writ of certiorari is to settle conflicting rulings amongst the various districts.

[Fl0und3rz]

That makes sense. A case would have to be brought first in the 9th circuit (either as a defense to ATF/State enforcement of the interstate ban, or as in the OP case suing to seek injunctive and/or declaratory judgment relief) before there is any comfortable level of judicial guidance on the interstate handgun transfer ban (don't hold your breath for the ATF to issue an opinion on non-enforcement).

[pianoman9701]

just FYI for those talking about buying guns in other states, this doesn't mean much for washington...don't get me wrong, it's a great start, but unfortunately a district court in texas won't have much influence for our courts. Even if it stands in the court of appeals, washington is in the 9th district, this goes to the 5th. Not binding at all on washington unless it hits the supreme court or the 9th circuit, but still good news

So you're saying that a federal circuit court ruling only affects the American citizens in that district, not all Americans? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Can you explain how that works, please?

[Bean Counter]

Pman, that's exactly how it works. One District Court of Appeals will often reference another district Court of Appeals ruling in its reasoning, however it is not binding on another district. Again, this is the number one reason the Supreme Court takes up cases for appeal.

[pianoman9701]

Thanks BC.

[splashcaster]

Pman, that's exactly how it works. One District Court of Appeals will often reference another district Court of Appeals ruling in its reasoning, however it is not binding on another district. Again, this is the number one reason the Supreme Court takes up cases for appeal.