Supremes asked to open door to interstate handgun sales

wnd.com ^ | 11/26/2018 | Bob Unruh

[rktman]

If the buyer and seller both follow all applicable laws, the federal government allows the interstate purchase of a home.

Or a chain saw.

Or a sword.

Or a computer.

Or even a long gun, like a rifle or shotgun.

But not a handgun.

And that prohibition is being targeted in a new petition to the high court for the justices to hear the arguments in the Mance v. Whitaker case from the 5th Circuit, and reverse it.

It involves a Texas firearms retailer and two would-be customers who reside in Washington, D.C. A federal district court earlier ruled that the interstate handgun ban is facially unconstitutional, which was reversed by the 5th Circuit panel, explains the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is pursuing the appeal.

At the 5th, a petition for rehearing en banc was rejected 8-7.

The case is on behalf of Andrew and Tracy Hanson of Washington, D.C., and Texas firearms retailer Fredric Mance.

They are represented by attorney Alan Gura, famed for his earlier precedent setting work on gun rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court..

“The ban on interstate handgun sales was adopted decades ago,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “prior to the advent of the National Instant Check System that is now in place. The Hansons have essentially been denied the ability to legally purchase a handgun from a licensed retailer because of this prohibition.

[rktman]

Just how much infringement is acceptable when it comes to rights guaranteed to NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government? My neighbor has my chain saw and we didn't have to go to the FSI (federal chainsaw investigators) for me to give it to him. Did I violate some obscure unheard of law?

[rktman]

NON print:

https://www.wnd.com/2018/11/supremes-asked-to-open-door-to-interstate-handgun-sales/?cat_orig=us

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“Did I violate some obscure unheard of law?”

Citizen’s Arrest! Citizen’s Arrest! ~ Barney Fife ;)

[dp0622]

Some state laws that try to override the constitution were made to be ignored.

Consequences be damned.

We either stand for something or we stand for nothing.

[Olog-hai]

Supremes asked to open door to interstate handgun sales …

Think they’re up to the job?

[Redwood71]

As long as the public has the misguided assumption that rifles and shotguns are for hunting and handguns are only for defense (or offence), then nothing will change. At the moment, handguns can be used for anything. But everything else, except semi-auto or auto weapons, can be used in the minds of the people only for shooting game.

Mind conditioning from kindergarten up.

rwood

[budj]

[oldasrocks]

I dropped a deer a few years ago with my .357.

[LibWhacker]

If the buyer and seller both follow all applicable laws, the federal government allows the interstate purchase of a home... But not a handgun.

But wait... I regularly drool over the offerings at Bud's Guns, which I was under the impression they sold mailorder interstate. Have been for years. Did I just wake up from a dream and find out I was actually living in a nightmare?

[gaijin]

I could be mistaken, but I believe in California now if you legally own an AR-15 and your non-felon buddy sitting next to you at a range takes a few shots on it, that might constitute a technical transfer and therefore a FELONY.

I heard about this a few years ago but am unsure.

[Bitman]

I used to hunt with my .44 magnum. It is a challenge. Did cheat a little though... Used a Red Dot scope.

[rktman]

Yeah, but you can’t just drive over and pick one up and return to your home state without the federally authorized middle person being involved. I’ve bought from them before.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“Nip it in the BUD!” :)

[marktwain]

This is not only a violation of the Second Amendment but an inversion of the intent of the commerce clause. The commerce clause was created, in part, to prevent the states from interfering in interstate commerce, not to help them create barriers to interstate commerce.

This is so opposite of the original intent of the commerce clause, that when 18th Amendment (prohibition) was repealed by the 21st Amendment, the 21st Amendment specifically gave the federal government the power to enforce state prohibitions on the interstate transportation of alcohol.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

[Kozy]

If we do not have borders between countries why do we have them between states?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

This came about with the 1968 Gun Control Law. A person could not buy any firearm or ammo out of his state of residence. Not a rifle, shotgun or handgun.
Reagan made the change to allow long guns to be purchased out of state, but not handguns.
The Dems tried to add a “poison pill” to the law by adding a total ban on the ownership of new machine guns. The law was passed, we got long gun and ammo purchases across state lines but lost the legal taxed new made machine gun purchases.

[rktman]

Hmmm. Maybe I’ll “rush” the border of Utah this week. ;-) Possibly just the county line.

[Ancesthntr]

“Have been for years. Did I just wake up from a dream and find out I was actually living in a nightmare? “

---

You need to do the transaction with an in-state (for you) FFL, otherwise you cannot purchase said handgun legally, not since 1968.

[Charles Martel]

The Dems tried to add a “poison pill” to the law by adding a total ban on the ownership of new machine guns. The law was passed, we got long gun and ammo purchases across state lines but lost the legal taxed new made machine gun purchases.

That amendment was some seriously shady business, given the way it was "passed" (no big surprise, though, with Charles Rangel running the show that day).

[Ancesthntr]

“The law was passed, we got long gun and ammo purchases across state lines but lost the legal taxed new made machine gun purchases.”

---

...and that part of the law (now Title 18, Section 922(o)) is, itself, a violation of the Constitution (AND the 2nd Amendment). It is a violation of the Constitution itself, because it makes a mockery of the Article 1, Section 8 power of the Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal” (essentially, to enlist private individuals as legal combatants against enemy forces, both commercial and military). Both the Continental Congress and, more importantly, the US Congress itself, exercised that power by granting Letters to private individuals who owned ships armed with cannon. To restrict the right to own full auto firearms as the ‘86 FOPA does, is to effectively wipe out the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause.

Further, it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment pursuant to the “US v. Miller” decision of 1939 (which has been partly revised/overruled with “Heller”). Specifically, the only reason that the Miller decision went in favor of the US government was that the government claimed in its brief that the part of the 1934 NFA regulating full auto firearms (and also short-barreled weapons, which was the specific issue in play in Miller) was Constitutional because it did NOT ban such firearms, it only taxed them...and now, thanks to the ‘86 FOPA, the government is specifically PROHIBITED from collecting this tax on any new firearms. Thus, it IS most definitely a ban that even the government itself admitted (in 1939) would be an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment.