This amounts to a double post (the same as I just posted in the
Kachalksy thread):
A bit of a quote from the
DeCastro decision:
Quote:
|
The facial constitutionality of § 922(a)(3) is unimpaired by the risk that some state laws governing the sale of firearms may themselves be unconstitutional.
|
And the closing remarks by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs:
Quote:
|
Had Decastro opted to utilize the lawful means by which he could have acquired a handgun in New York and done so, § 922(a)(3) would have played no role in regulating that transaction. By the same token, § 922(a)(3) by its terms did not preclude Decastro from acquiring the handgun in question from the Florida dealer because all that the federal statute effected were minor limitations on the channels through which that handgun was to be shipped from Florida to New York. Even though acquisition is indeed often necessary to effectuate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, any limitations on Decastro's acquisition were those occasioned by his own refusal to comply with New York State's requirements for possessing a handgun, and the federal statute, therefore, played no demonstrable role in precluding Decastro from purchasing a firearm in either state so as to exercise his Second Amendment right. For these reasons, § 922(a)(3), as applied, does not substantially burden Decastro's Second Amendment right to own a firearm in defense of his home and hearth. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008).
|
None of the above is the case with
Lane.. The decision in this criminal case is not on point with the civil litigation at bar.