D.C. Court Ruling Could Affect Out-Of-State Gun Buying

cbsnews.com ^ | 7 December, 2009 | Declan McCullagh

[marktwain]

You can buy a car from an out-of-state dealer and pick it up there. You can buy a house in another part of the country, as speculators unwisely did during the real estate bubble, sight unseen. But even though the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms -- and presumably to buy them -- you can't purchase a handgun while you're visiting another state.

A gun rights group has sued the Justice Department to overturn this prohibition, which became law as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the case is now in front of U.S. District Judge James Robertson in Washington, D.C.

Narrowly speaking, the Second Amendment Foundation has filed the Hodgkins v. Holder suit on behalf of American citizens who live abroad and would like to buy firearms when they return for a visit (but can't because Form 4473 requires them to list what U.S. state they live in). More broadly, it could restore Americans' right to buy handguns while traveling across state lines as long as they undergo the normal federal background check.

[marktwain]

This part of GCA 68 is an exact reversal of the intent of the commerce clause. The clause was meant to prevent the states from stopping commerce across state lines, not to enable them to do so.

[Apple Blossom]

Don’t you wish we could ping Jim?

[SkyPilot]

Watch a state try and pass a state law restricting the slaughter of a child in the womb, and the liberals and the media would go crazy.

If you attempt to exercise your Constitutional right regarding firearms, the states pass 60,000 laws and nobody bats an eye.

[bmwcyle]

ping

[jwparkerjr]

The occurs to me, again, that if the powers that be would put one-tenth as much effort into identifying and incarcerating bad guys as they do in limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to own and carry a firearm the results would be much more impressive. IMHO, we have long since reached and passed the point of diminishing returns when it comes to protecting society from the dangers of guns.

When resources are limited it makes perfect sense to use them in a more directed manner. That does not include passing law after law aimed at guns, not the people who use them.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here.

[Malsua]

You can buy a handgun in a different state, you just can’t take delivery of it.

It has to be shipped to a FFL in your home state who will then do the NICS check for a fee and if you’re cleared, give you the gun assuming all the state requirements are met such as any pistol permitting requirements.

Long guns can be purchased in other states, but the sale has to conform to the laws of your state of residence. I can go to Ohio and buy a shotgun but I must have my NJ Firearms purchaser ID. John Q public from Kentucky can go to Ohio and use his drivers license.

[bitterohiogunclinger]

“would put one-tenth as much effort into identifying and incarcerating bad guys as they do in limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to own and carry a firearm”

The wording of your statement presupposes that the intent of lawmakers is to control bad guys. It is not.

[ctdonath2]

you just can’t take delivery of it. It has to be shipped to a FFL in your home state

Point of this case is to eliminate that restriction.

[jwparkerjr]

It was certainly not my intention to say they wanted to control the bad guys. It seems to me they are intent on controlling the weapon as opposed to controlling the person.

[Manly Warrior]

Exactly; the 68 GCA restricts interstate commerce n several ways, efffectively eliminating the right to keep and bear arms of several classes of citizens.

As you stated, one can buy long guns in intra or interstate commerce, either you go there in person to take ownership after the instant check says “proceed” or you have your local dealer transfer from owner/dealer out of state into your home state and the instant check and 4473 is completed in your home state etc.

Handguns, on the other hand, are restricted to purchase soley in your home state (or via transfer from OOS owner/dealer to your local FFL). Restricting interstate trade.

The gist of the suit is that a US citizen residing overseas yet in th eUS for whatever reason has no “state of residence” that enables the free exercise of the 2A, due to the 68 GCA provisions above. No home state of residence, no ability to purchase arms, long or otherwise.

The only thing one can do is either list your US address as what is used to be, or lie, either way, a violation of the GCA. Think of a service member stationed in Germany, legal residence is Germany, unless they own a vacant house (not rented to another etc) in some state, they legally do not have a US residence. You cannot claim that Mom and Dad’s place is their legal residence- most states require you to live there for a certain period of time before residence is established. Same for citizens employed overseas privately etc.

[Malsua]

Point of this case is to eliminate that restriction.

I'd be willing to bet that some states, like NJ, CA, Il and a few others will sue to stop it. It won't make any sense, but they'll do it anyway.

NJ one gun a Month starts in January. The state will complain somehow that people that who've jumped through all the hoops to get permission from the state will now all the sudden run out and become gun traffickers. Bank on it. The cadaver we have for a senator introduces gun bans and restrictions constantly. He'll figure out something.

[Red in Blue PA]

GCA 68 is Unconstitutional!

[Red in Blue PA]

[bitterohiogunclinger]

“It seems to me they are intent on controlling the weapon as opposed to controlling the person.”

Gun control laws are intended to harass, intimidate and control law abiding persons. The politicians have shown for decades their intent to disarm us. They've also shown for decades no interest in controlling criminals. Perhaps because they are moral equals.