Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 11, 2015, 12:36:14 PM
Is it April 1st yet?
Quote
In a ruling issued today, a Federal judge has declared that the longstanding ban on gun dealers selling handguns to residents in different states is not only unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but also violates other fair trade provisions of the United States Constitution. The full decision is available here, but from what I can tell this looks to be a major win for the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/foghorn/breaking-federal-judge-declares-interstate-handgun-transfer-ban-unconstitutional/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/foghorn/breaking-federal-judge-declares-interstate-handgun-transfer-ban-unconstitutional/)
For those astute readers out there, you'll note that "the requirement that all sales of handguns to out-of-state residents must go through another FFL (i.e., an FFL in the purchaser’s state of residence)" was the only thing out there that prevented you from going to OR or ID to circumvent I-594's onerous registry requirement.
This appears to be cause for celebration.
Decision link (pdf).
http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/guraop021115.pdf (http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/guraop021115.pdf)
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 11, 2015, 12:46:07 PM
Quote
The Court thus then determined that because the federal law imposed a burden on a constitutional right, and that the burden was not de minimis, the law must be evaluated under a standard of strict scrutiny. Under this standard, the government must show that it had a compelling interest and that the law was “narrowly tailored” – that is, the law was the least restrictive means of addressing the compelling interest.
The Court accepted the government’s argument that its interest in preventing handgun crime was compelling. However, it found that the requirement that all sales of handguns to out-of-state residents must go through another FFL (i.e., an FFL in the purchaser’s state of residence) was not narrowly tailored. The Court noted that FFL’s could sell long guns to out of state residents without involving a second FFL, and that there was no evidence that the involvement of a second FFL in handgun purchases served any particular purpose. The Court also noted FFL’s are required to run a NICS check on all handgun purchasers, that federal law prohibited FFL’s from selling to persons not authorized to purchase handguns under their state or local law, and that nothing prevented states from prosecuting out-of-state FFL’s who illegally sold handguns to their residents. In short, there was nothing achieved by having a second FFL involved that could not also be achieved by simply applying the same laws that apply to interstate sales of long guns.
As a fallback, the Court also analyzed the federal law under intermediate scrutiny, i.e., that the law be “reasonably adapted” to its public safety objectives. The Court found that the federal law failed this test as well, finding that the requirement of having a second FFL involved in the transaction was not substantially related to the government’s stated goals.
The Court also found that the law violated the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment, insofar as it discriminated against non-residents, and failed the strict scrutiny test for this as well.
This case will almost certainly be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has historically been friendly to such Second Amendment challenges, and I strongly suspect it may ultimately be destined for review by the Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who has successfully handled many other recent Second Amendment challenges.
Post by: csaaphill on February 11, 2015, 01:29:16 PM
Post by: jrebel on February 11, 2015, 01:31:58 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 11, 2015, 01:40:03 PM
Post by: jeepster on February 11, 2015, 02:19:16 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 11, 2015, 02:19:50 PM
What about Alaska?
It is a big state. Really pretty.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 11, 2015, 02:25:13 PM
Post by: docsven on February 11, 2015, 02:27:00 PM
It is a huge deal. This means that I can go to OR and buy a handgun and bring it back to WA myself without an FFL transfer. I wonder how long it'll be before this takes effect?A buddy of mine from here was down in Oregon just before Christmas and he said that was the case then. They had advertisements in a sporting goods store that if you were a Washington resident you could buy, pay no sales tax, and no transfer fee.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 11, 2015, 02:31:29 PM
It is a huge deal. This means that I can go to OR and buy a handgun and bring it back to WA myself without an FFL transfer. I wonder how long it'll be before this takes effect?A buddy of mine from here was down in Oregon just before Christmas and he said that was the case then. They had advertisements in a sporting goods store that if you were a Washington resident you could buy, pay no sales tax, and no transfer fee.
Before this decision, your buddy would have had to have a handgun transferred to a second FFL in state. Long gun transfers would have not had to be transferred to a second FLL in state.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 11, 2015, 02:34:03 PM
Post by: docsven on February 11, 2015, 02:36:58 PM
Post by: Jingles on February 11, 2015, 02:39:54 PM
You might be able to purchase a used vehicle for pennies on the dollar but WA is going to make sure to pay their appraised price. Bought a used vehicle for $2000.00 but the State of WA Licensing said the vehicle was worth 4200.00 so guess what paid tax on the 4200. regardless of what the bill of sale said
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 11, 2015, 02:46:43 PM
Might be able to get them cheaper in another state but you know as sure as bears schit in the woods the State of WA will make any saving null and void by their tax and very similar to the vehicle appraisal priceing. Except it will be done through the in state FFL dealer charging WA state tax in addition to the tax you paid in say UT.....So instead of just paying the 6.25% tax in UT you also get to pay the 8.2% as I would here in OK county....
You might be able to purchase a used vehicle for pennies on the dollar but WA is going to make sure to pay their appraised price. Bought a used vehicle for $2000.00 but the State of WA Licensing said the vehicle was worth 4200.00 so guess what paid tax on the 4200. regardless of what the bill of sale said
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.
There might technically still be a WA excise tax owed, but without mandatory DOL/DOR reporting. But how are they going to enforce an excise tax on something they don't know you are using in WA?
WA usage of out of state vehicle purchase are different, because you are mandated to register and license a vehicle, and that is when/where they enforce the sales/excise tax.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 11, 2015, 03:47:28 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 11, 2015, 04:34:26 PM
Post by: splashcaster on February 11, 2015, 08:13:47 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 11, 2015, 08:28:33 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on February 11, 2015, 08:29:14 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 11, 2015, 09:57:49 PM
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.
Post by: Bean Counter on February 11, 2015, 10:38:01 PM
The #1 reason the SCOTUS grants a writ of certiorari is to settle conflicting rulings amongst the various districts.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 12, 2015, 07:12:28 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 12, 2015, 07:42:07 AM
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?
Post by: Bean Counter on February 12, 2015, 11:34:12 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 12, 2015, 11:42:19 AM
Post by: splashcaster on February 12, 2015, 07:46:11 PM
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.
:yeah: