View Single Post
Old November 28, 2011, 11:50 PM   #17
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,550
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:

Plaintiffs’ standing is identical to that upheld in Dearth v. Holder, 641 F.3d 499 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Defendants’ efforts to distinguish this identical factual predicate—Holder’s use of Form 4473 to bar firearm transactions based on residence—are unavailing. As far as standing is concerned, this case is practically Dearth for all intents and purposes, only with respect to out-of-state rather than out-of-country residents.
The defendants argument over the claim that (in the 60's) the Legislature was concerned over the inability of the States to do a background check on out of State residents.

Indeed, the interstate handgun transfer ban precedes the advent of the National Instant Criminal Background Check system by nearly three decades. And Defendants simply ignore the fact that gun dealers are already held responsible for following complex local restrictions binding long gun sales. Defendants fail to explain why the ability to understand and follow gun laws is proportional to barrel length.
Gura is saying that the original legislative justification for the ban is now moot.

There is also an Alternative Universe argument towards the middle of the brief. Can you spot it?
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 29 SAF Reply Brief Lane CA4.pdf (694.9 KB, 15 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.04395 seconds with 8 queries