Interstate handgun Sales.

kraigwy

New member
U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the federal interstate handgun sales ban is unconstitutional.

What do we know of this?

I live near a small town on the WY-SD border. Rapid City being the closest large town, therefore I do a lot of shopping there. Scheels, Cabela's etc.

And of course I've been known to buy a firearm or two across state lines.

Long guns arnt the problem, Pay my money, fill out the 4473 and have the background check done, and take my new gun home.

Except for handguns, they have to be shipped to a dealer in my state which is a hassle plus the added expense of shipping and FFL Transfer fees.

My understanding the above ruling should eliminate this, a hand gun would be treated like a long gun.

Am I correct? Does this ruling only apply to the jurisdiction of the court case?

Any thoughts or idea's?
 
District court? Not circuit court of appeals?

Does the ruling apply anywhere, to anyone other than the principal of the case at hand? IANAL but I thought district court decisions can't be cited as precedent.
 
Did he rule on the law, or is that just dicta?

From District to Circuit to SCOTUS, don't hold your breath.

But, now that we have NICS checks nationally, in a few minutes, just what is the purpose of an interstate commerce ban?
 
It's moot at this point. The order of Judge O'Connor has been stayed, and the case, Mance v. Lynch (No. 15-10311), is now on appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
 
I don't know what court this is out of or the style of the case, but if someone can provide that information, I can try to follow up later in the week.

As far as where it applies, here's how precedence works:
SCOTUS -- binding on everything below it on matters of federal law (Circuit Courts of Appeal and District Courts).
Circuit Courts of Appeal -- binding on everything below them in their respective circuits; persuasive in other Circuit Courts of Appeal (District Courts).
District Courts -- Persuasive in other District Courts

Now, when you get to the interplay between federal and state law, it gets a little wrinkly, but I don't think that's what we're looking at here, so I'll leave that for another day.
 
Persuasive in all other district courts. You probably know this but for the benefit of other readers who may not … All " persuasive" means is that a lawyer can point to it and tell a judge "See? Look at this reasoning! I think you should use the same reasoning here."
 
Spats McGee said:
Persuasive in all other district courts. You probably know this but for the benefit of other readers who may not … All " persuasive" means is that a lawyer can point to it and tell a judge "See? Look at this reasoning! I think you should use the same reasoning here."
I always thought you couldn't "tell" a judge anything. Maybe you meant to write,

All " persuasive" means is that a lawyer can point to it and suggest to a judge "See? Look at this reasoning! I think you should consider using the same reasoning here."

:D
 
Persuasive in all other district courts. You probably know this but for the benefit of other readers who may not … All " persuasive" means is that a lawyer can point to it and tell a judge "See? Look at this reasoning! I think you should use the same reasoning here."

I appreciate you spelling things out.
 
Frank provided a good summary of the District Court's decision in an earlier thread. The District Court's decision is well worth reading, even with the case pending in the Fifth Circuit.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I always thought you couldn't "tell" a judge anything. Maybe you meant to write,

All " persuasive" means is that a lawyer can point to it and suggest to a judge "See? Look at this reasoning! I think you should consider using the same reasoning here."
Touche' ;)
 
Good question, but it would be truly surprising if it was not, given such a dramatic change in the status quo. The government very much does not want to lose this case.
 
Back
Top