Posted on 02/18/2015 10:42:44 AM PST by Kaslin
The fight to protect the Second Amendment from the clutches of the gun control crowd can feel much like the race between the tortoise and the hare made famous in Aesop’s Fables. Backed with huge budgets and armed with the moral elasticity to hijack any national tragedy to further their cause, gun control proponents employ flashy ads, emotional rhetoric and outright bullying to push their way to the forefront of the public debate. Meanwhile, Second Amendment supporters toil through the court system, winning occasional hard-fought victories in the drive to dismantle decades of laws designed to rob us of one of our most sacred natural rights.
One of those victories came last week, when a U.S. District Court judge in Texas found the federal interstate handgun transfer ban, established by the Gun Control Act of 1968 to be unconstitutional.
The case, Mance v. Holder, began when a law-abiding couple from Washington, D.C. tried to purchase a pair of handguns from a firearms retailer in Arlington, Texas. Because of the long-standing federal law prohibiting someone from one state from purchasing a handgun in another state, the couple was not able to complete the transaction. To do so in compliance with the federally-imposed system, the couple would have had to pay for the guns in Texas, then pay to have the dealer ship them to a federal firearms licensee (“FFL”) in their state of residence (Washington, DC). With the local authorities in Washington, DC being notoriously anti-gun, even finding an FFL in the nation’s capital willing to handle the transaction would be difficult.
According to veteran gun rights attorney Alan Gura, who also tried the landmark Heller and McDonald Second Amendment cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal ban impermissibly limits access to firearms for law-abiding citizens through reduced consumer choice, higher costs, and unnecessary delays. Predictably, the federal government argued the ban – which it views as a mere inconvenience for the law-abiding citizen -- is necessary to ensure “public safety.”
Unswayed by the government’s boilerplate arguments, the District Court held the government failed to provide evidence sufficient to justify the burdens on Second Amendment rights imposed by the 1968 sales ban. Additionally, the Court correctly determined the ban violated the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. As Judge Reed O’Connor noted in his opinion, “[t]he federal interstate handgun transfer ban targets the entire national market of handgun sales and directly burdens law-abiding, responsible citizens who seek to complete otherwise lawful transactions for handguns.” O’Connor correctly summarized the fundamental defect in the 1968 law with these words -- “The federal law not only creates a discriminatory regime based on residency, but it also involves access to the constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms.”
O’Connor’s ruling is important for Second Amendment rights not only because of the impact it will have on making firearms more accessible and less expensive for law-abiding citizens; but because of the way in which it builds on a string of crucial court decisions in the post-Heller era (that seminal decision was issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008). This latest court victory – if affirmed on appeal – establishes that the individual right to keep and bear arms does not end at a state’s borders.
In the Congress, now under Republican control in both houses, legislative efforts to shore up these hard-fought judicial victories are gaining momentum. For example, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas has introduced the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.” This legislation would ensure that if a citizen possesses a permit for the concealed carry of a firearm in one state, it must be recognized in any other state with concealed carry laws. This bill would treat concealed carry permits like driver’s licenses, which are issued by one state but recognized in all other states under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause. Cornyn notes also that the legislation would “eliminate some of the ‘gotcha moments,’ where people inadvertently cross state lines” with firearms they are legally allowed to carry in one state, but under the current gun control regime, oft times not in others. One need only look at the ongoing police harassment of out-of-state gun owners in Maryland to see how badly such a law is needed.
Gura said he fully expects that the U.S. government will appeal the Mance case; so it may be some time before we see the onerous interstate handgun transfer ban finally struck from the books. However, as the tortoise proved, it is the perseverance of the moral and virtuous that ultimately wins the race. Though the fight in the courts and in the legislatures will continue for many years to come, thanks to Second Amendment heroes like Gura and Cornyn, with each incremental victory the finish line as set by our Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights grows closer.
...”the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....”
The left doesn’t believe in our rights.
‘...“Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.” This legislation would ensure that if a citizen possesses a permit for the concealed carry of a firearm in one state, it must be recognized in any other state with concealed carry laws. ‘
Hope this one winds up law.
As to the article does anyone understand the practical effect of this ruling? It would be so nice to be able to buy HGs out of state w/o the need to go thru a home state FFL.
...”the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be limited through reduced consumer choice, higher costs, and unnecessary delays.....”
Free men don't ask permission.
Hope this one winds up law.
You do realize you are advocating for the destruction of the 2nd Amendment, right?
I don't see that the 2A says, "Shall not be infringed, as long as you have a permit". Shall not be infringed. Period. End of discussion. Settled law for well over 200 years. Let's start acting like we're Americans?
Soon, this will be the law regarding gay marriage - that it must be recognized in every state, so it is fitting that this should also apply to our Second Amendment Rights - which are spelled out in the Constitution. Gay rights are NOT.
Either you’re a provocateur or you really do take your own advice. If the later then logically you’d be willing to be the test case. Right? If so my hats sincerely off to you. Otherwise, you’re just a bag of wind. Which is it?
Licensing, permitting, registration, fee extractions, record-,keeping, etc etc
Correct
If the government can’t ban guns outright, it will ban the ammo that makes them more than a mere club. The ATF is trying to ban .223 “cop killer” rifle ammo because it fits a few pistols. Using that logic, nearly any ammo can be banned.
Why aren’t we hearing shots being fired on Concord Bridge?
>This legislation would ensure that if a citizen possesses a permit for the concealed carry of a firearm in one state, it must be recognized in any other state with concealed carry laws.<
.
It is similar to the same-sex marriage law that is being pushed for all states to accept.
This morning on CNN, Cuomo and Jeffery too in made it clear that they do not believe our freedom comes from God. Rather, they say we have “evolved” the laws passed by Congress give us our freedom. This is heresy.
Obviously, they are taking heat over the ‘Rights from God’ argument that is imbedded in American history. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that “We are endowed by our Creator with certain, unalienable rights...”
That’s pretty hard to argue with, but they argue anyway. They say that society ‘evolves’ rights?
If so, then those ‘rights’ are not rights at all. They are ‘current policy positions’ to be changed on further developments.
The liberal mind is such a wasteland of serfdom. Almost makes you lament the etymological connection between liberty and liberal, because the Good Lord knows, they fully reject liberty.
The left believes what constitutes "rights" is the consensus of the people through debate. God-loving people adhere to absolutes, those that radiate out from God down to Man, they cannot change regardless of law.
Yep. The left believes in mob rule.
You watch CNN? Seriously??
I don’t ask permission. As an American, I consider that offensive. I’m also a law abiding citizen - I carry openly. I WILL NOT ask permission to carry, or purchase, a firearm.
They are losing in the courts so they are taking another Marxist path. By they I mean BO and Holder. They are activley conducting “Operation checkpoint”.
The Attorney General of the United States of America is calling certain business’ and threatening them with legal action if they do business with these certain types of business’, you know business’ that BO and Holder don’t like. Gun stores are on the list, imagine your local banker who you have done business with for 10-20 years, they send you a letter and say, thanks for the last 20, but we no longer want your business, we have closed your accounts!
well stated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.