Federal Judge Declares Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban Unconstitutional

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Interesting (to me) historical side-note regarding "non-resident" firearm possession. In the 1800s (specifically, I think it was the 1850s), Indiana had a regulation that "travelers" could not carry concealed firearms. Not clear whether that was inter- or intra-state travelers.

    Back to the opinion - I like the strict scrutiny standard. That bodes well.

    Unconstitutional as written, and as applied - that's a good thing.

    Alternative findings - the judge is trying to make the opinion appeals-proof. That's good.

    Ought to be interesting.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,027
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Interesting (to me) historical side-note regarding "non-resident" firearm possession. In the 1800s (specifically, I think it was the 1850s), Indiana had a regulation that "travelers" could not carry concealed firearms. Not clear whether that was inter- or intra-state travelers.

    In 1820 Indiana adopted a Southern tradition of prohibiting the concealed carry of firearms. The exception was for traveling. Concealment equated to criminal intent a la the Town of Speedway.

    The way to read this order is to skip to the conclusion and work backward.

    So, look at a(3) and b(3) and the cfr and see what has been declared unconstitutional. What does it mean? Well, under this ruling, while visiting Pennsylvania to see my brother, if I see a pistol I like, I can buy it from an FFL and bring it back to Indiana.

    It's not a final order, meaning it is not appealable yet. (Will be soon).

    I would anticipate DoJ taking this all the way up and staying the District Court order (asking that the order be stayed rather).

    In a nutshell, celebrate, but don't be making any gun shop tours of the Midsouth or Midwest this Spring.:D
     
    Last edited:

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,027
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    What do you mean "your people"?
    :bat:

    Well, in this context, it means "your FFL" call "my FFL".

    Here is a well-known INGOer who pretends to be a pharmacist but is actually a FFL:

    15guns_600a.JPG
     

    ziggy

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 1, 2013
    414
    28
    Fort Wayne area
    This is good news! The Court recognized that involving a second FFL achieves no real purpose other than to burden peoples rights under the 2nd Amendment and to burden interstate commerce.

    It is a step toward recognizing that the 2A should be given a broad interpretation and that federal courts should recognize and protect the people's rights under the 2A.

    That is how I read it, anyhow.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,946
    113
    Mitchell
    Which judge can we get to say it's an infringement on me being able to buy a machine gun and that tax stamps are akin to pole taxes in that they prevent the poor from enjoying their 2A rights to bear the arms of their choosing?
     
    Top Bottom