Texas Federal Case on Interstate Transfer of Handguns....

mehavey · August 13, 2015, 05:18 PM

> US District Court/Northern District of Texas: Mance v. Holder
> Court noted that FFL’s could sell long guns to out of state
> residents without involving a second FFL, and that there
> was no evidence that the involvement of a second FFL in
> handgun purchases served any particular purpose. The Court
> also noted FFL’s are required to run a NICS check on all
> handgun purchasers, that federal law prohibited FFL’s from
> selling to persons not authorized to purchase handguns
> under their state or local law, and that nothing prevented
> states from prosecuting out-of-state FFL’s who illegally
> sold handguns to their residents.
>
> In short, there was nothing achieved by having a second FFL
> involved that could not also be achieved by simply applying
> the same laws that apply to interstate sales of long guns.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...onstitutional/
http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/w...raop021115.pdf
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...constitutional

Has anything ever come of this ruling across a wider venue ?

**Tom Servo** · August 13, 2015, 07:29 PM

The opinion was issued about six months ago. It's from the district court, so it's not really binding. It has yet to go to the 5th Circuit.

gc70 · August 14, 2015, 10:02 PM

The case is now Mance v Lynch and is in the briefing stage at the 5th Circuit. The government's initial brief is here.

The case's previous discussion is here.

As Frank Ettin noted:

Quote:

The injunction will apply nationwide, because it blocks any enforcement as unconstitutional on their face of specific federal statutes and regulations.

However, as Frank also noted:

Quote:

As to the practical question of whether someone can now go and buy a handgun at an FFL in another State, Lawyer Branca answers:

Quote:

...As a practical matter, however, I’m sure you’ll find the answer to be “no.” I very much doubt any FFL is going to be willing to do direct out-of-state transfers until this matter has been thoroughly litigated, and even then only if the ATF(E) issues a letter assenting to such transfers. Given this order came from a “mere” federal District Court, we are a many years from having this be settled law.

And absent settled law it’s hard to imagine an FFL incurring the risk of prosecution on a 10-year Federal felony for the profit he’d make selling a Glock 19 to an out-of-state buyer....

August 13, 2015, 05:18 PM	#1
mehavey Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 6,896	Texas Federal Case on Interstate Transfer of Handguns.... > *US District Court/Northern District of Texas: Mance v. Holder* > Court noted that FFL’s could sell long guns to out of state > residents without involving a second FFL, and that there > was no evidence that the involvement of a second FFL in > handgun purchases served any particular purpose. The Court > also noted FFL’s are required to run a NICS check on all > handgun purchasers, that federal law prohibited FFL’s from > selling to persons not authorized to purchase handguns > under their state or local law, and that nothing prevented > states from prosecuting out-of-state FFL’s who illegally > sold handguns to their residents. > > In short, there was nothing achieved by having a second FFL > involved that could not also be achieved by simply applying > the same laws that apply to interstate sales of long guns. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...onstitutional/ http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/w...raop021115.pdf https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...constitutional Has anything ever come of this ruling across a wider venue ?

August 13, 2015, 07:29 PM	#2
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	The opinion was issued about six months ago. It's from the district court, so it's not really binding. It has yet to go to the 5th Circuit. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe