|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 10, 2011, 09:40 PM | #1 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
SCOTUS Cert Filed: SAF and Gura: Lane v. Holder
From the Second Amendment Foundation's FaceBook page, this announcement:
Quote:
As you may know, there is only a single FFL in D.C. He has lost his current lease and is currently looking for another place to do business. Mr. Sykes does not have a storefront, per se. What he does is to trafnser handguns from other FFL's into D.C. Since Heller, Mr. Sykes has facilitated over 1000 transfers (at a cost of $125 per transfer). Since he has lost his lease, he has stopped accepting new transfers. This essentially means that D.C. residents have no legal means to acquire handguns for self defense. Building upon the remand in Dearth v. Holder, the SAF is attempting to invalidate that portion of the 1968 GCA that requires you to be a resident of the State wherein your handgun purchase/transfer is made. If successful, this will mean that any U.S. citizen may purchase not only rifles and shotguns, but also handguns from anywhere else in the U.S., from any FFL. |
|
May 11, 2011, 06:13 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
Does this become moot if the one dealer in DC manages to re-open or another sets up business?
I think this is a good idea but it may be a lot quicker to get congress to change the law to have handguns treated the same as long guns for out-of-state sales. |
May 11, 2011, 08:16 AM | #3 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Short answer: No.
Mr. Sykes keeps no inventory. He uses his FFL merely to extract a fee (exorbitant, IMO) for the transfer. Residents would still have to shop out of State and pay to have the handgun shipped to Sykes, who would hold the firearm until the D.C. registration process was complete (and he had his $125 fee). This issue was raised in paragraph 13 of the complaint. |
September 7, 2011, 10:27 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
Don't mean to step on the toes of anyone, just did some checking for an update. 7/29/11 the appeal was filed, 8/1/11 the fees for the appeal were paid.
No shockers in any of that, just the cogs of justice turning albeit ever so slowly. |
September 8, 2011, 08:46 AM | #6 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
You're not stepping on any toes that I know of. Try as I might, I simply can't do it all!
Thanks for the heads up on the appeal. To be sure, the wheels of justice just laid rubber on the road! Two months, from start to finish, in the district court is literally breakneck speed! |
October 3, 2011, 09:52 PM | #7 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Alan Gura filed his opening brief at the 4th Circuit today.
In his inimitable style, he lays the groundwork for another possible Circuit Court win. Brief is attached. |
October 4, 2011, 08:20 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,592
|
Is it just me, or did Alan Gura just call the whole pistol purchasing experience stupid?
I am no lawyer and my head usually hurts when I read these briefs, but his brief seems clear and spot on when it comes to the burdensome efforts some people have to go through. QUESTION: If this case is won by Mr. Gura, will it become a case that can be used by the rest of the country to fight this requirement, or will it in effect, automatically place handguns in the same category as shotguns and rifles in regards to being able to purchase them in another state. (Will it depend on how high in the courts the case goes?) (I believe the way Missouri law is written, I can purchase a rifle or shotgun in any state which physically touches Missouri. Or is this a federal law?) Again, my thanks to you guys who work and explain these cases to those of us who have a hard time understanding all the legalese in them.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen. |
October 4, 2011, 09:37 AM | #9 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Under the 1968 GCA, Federal Law prohibited anyone from purchasing a pistol from out of State. rifle and shotgun purchases were limited to contiguous States.
Under the 1986 FOPA, the limitation on rifle and shotgun was repealed. However, many States had passed their own version of the 1968 GCA laws. When the FOPA went in effect, some States immediately repealed their rifle and shotgun bans. Some took a few years to do so. There are still quite a few States that have this law in effect. If this lawsuit prevails on its merits, people will be free to purchase handguns from an FFL in any State, provided that the sale is lawful in both the State of the seller and the buyer. In other words, the federal ban on handgun purchases being restricted to your State of residence will be ruled unconstitutional. The law in VA will be struck, as VA is a party to the the lawsuit. If the 4th Circuit agrees with Alan Gura's arguments and strikes the federal law, then that law (the federal law) is stricken throughout the entire US. The only State law that this will affect is the mirror law of VA (as they are a party to the suit and their mirror law is specifically targeted in this litigation). However this case turns out (for or against us), it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Should this suit survive the SCOTUS challenge, then it will be a matter of litigating in the individual states. With the federal precedent being set that these laws infringe the core right, it shouldn't be too long a battle. |
October 21, 2011, 06:46 PM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
DC changed their rules on the matter, rendering their portion of the case moot. Alan Gura had the case against DC dropped, the case against the Feds and VA continues.
|
November 7, 2011, 08:27 PM | #11 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Today, the responses to Lane v. Holder et al, were due.
VA AG Flaherty has filed their response (still waiting for the US AG to file theirs). The VA brief is interesting and they state a good case that the District Court was correct to dismiss for lack of standing. All that I can see that remains are the 18 U.S.C. § 922 implications. |
November 8, 2011, 10:39 AM | #12 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The US AG's brief came in late last night.
As one might expect, it deals heavily with protecting the existing firearms framework of the GCA/922 laws. The plaintiffs lack standing and the laws do not overly burden the RKBA. Should the Court find standing, in the alternative even if the laws implicate the right, they are constitutional and at most, intermediate scrutiny applies. Where have we heard this tune before? Quite frankly, under current Interstate Commerce interpretation, this suit will go nowhere. |
November 8, 2011, 12:40 PM | #13 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
Quote:
Is there a reason why intermediate scrutiny would apply here in lieu of heightened or strict scrutiny? |
|
November 8, 2011, 05:42 PM | #14 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
|
|
November 8, 2011, 10:00 PM | #15 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
The 2A-two-Step, or ring around the rosey, we all fall down?
|
November 8, 2011, 11:02 PM | #16 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
2A Two-Step: This Thread. Actually the first post lays it all out.
|
November 28, 2011, 11:50 PM | #17 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
On Tuesday, Nov. 22nd, 2011, Alan Gura filed the reply brief to the two responses in Lane v. Holder.
In regards the issue of Standing: Quote:
Quote:
There is also an Alternative Universe argument towards the middle of the brief. Can you spot it? |
||
November 29, 2011, 01:42 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
November 29, 2011, 09:16 AM | #19 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
So if you only drink beer, holding the bottle in one hand and a twisted pop-a-top in another, this Bud's not for you?
|
January 17, 2012, 10:47 PM | #20 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Back at the end of Dec., the Circuit was looking at a proposed window for Oral Arguments.
Quote:
So on 01/09, we get this on the 4th CCA docket: Quote:
So, the question is, What is Alan Gura doing in Denver with Gray's Case (Peterson)? The answer lies with a post I made in the Main 2A Cases Thread, here. In that post, I announced that 10 minutes of the Oral Argument would be set aside for arguments by amici curiae. What I/we didn't know was who the amici would be. It now appears that Alan Gura will argue for amicus CGF/SAF. We still don't know if all the amici will share that 10 minutes or if each amicus will receive 10 minutes. |
||
May 13, 2012, 04:29 PM | #21 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Lane v. Holder, CA4:
Quote:
|
|
May 13, 2012, 05:19 PM | #22 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The Internet Archive is flumoxed. The 7-15 opening hearing transcript was made available some time ago. Nobody has wanted to pay to download it from PACER.
I've always been curious as to what happened... So I have it. If you read it, your understanding of the opening brief at appeal will be increased. |
May 14, 2012, 09:36 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
I read the transcript. Very interesting. Gura never had a chance with this judge. The ruling based on standing is ludicrous. I had not read the opening brief so downloaded it. Unfortunately the pdf file is password protected.
|
May 14, 2012, 10:21 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
This case has me a little confused.
I read the transcript and it seems like the problem is a lack of FFLs in DC as opposed to laws prohibiting the plaintiffs from buying firearms. |
May 14, 2012, 10:35 PM | #25 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
KyJim, where did you Dl the complaint from? Here is the original: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....265997.1.0.pdf Here is the first amended complaint: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....265997.8.0.pdf Here is the Docket (where all the public files reside): http://www.archive.org/download/gov....97.docket.html
None of these files are PW protected. Davey, DC has only one FFL because of the way that DC zones the city. A gun shop that actually has guns, is unlawful (another case on another day). The only active FFL in the city simply transfers the firearms from an out of state FFL to the prospective firearms owner. When he lost his prior lease (partly due to new zoning regulations and partly due to the owner of the building taking back the lease), the City had to pass emergency zoning law to enable this FFL to operate in the Municipal Police Dept!! |
Tags |
alan gura , saf , second amendment |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|