There was an interesting Federal District Court gun decision today:

quote:

---

FFL dealer sues because he can't transfer a handgun direct to residents of District of Columbia who can legally posses a gun in DC.

"Because the Hansons could not immediately take possession, they declined to complete the transaction with Mance."

So dealer lost business and sues for relief from the Federal Handgun Transfer Ban.

"Accordingly, the Court DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a) are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing these provisions. The Court will issue its final judgment separately."

---

quote:

---

The reason it was decided so quickly is that no discovery or trial took place. The Gov't sought to have the case dismissed at the outset. Plaintiff basically said "frick you, not only are you wrong to seek dismissal, but we (the plaintiffs) are right on the law and want judgment right now without any discovery because there is no real factual issue in dispute."

Court said, "Plaintiff is correct. Plaintiff wins."

---

quote:

---

In a ruling issued today, a Federal judge has declared that the longstanding ban on gun dealers selling handguns to residents in different states is not only unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but also violates other fair trade provisions of the United States Constitution. The full decision is available here, but from what I can tell this looks to be a major win for the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Louis Bonham, one of TTAG’s consulting lawyers, wrote the following analysis of the ruling:


The suit was brought by a Texas gun dealer, two District of Columbia residents, and the Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In what appears to have been a test case, the DC residents wished to purchase a handgun from the Texas dealer, but federal law prohibited them from doing so without having the Texas dealer ship the gun to DC’s only FFL, who would have charged them a $125 transfer fee.

They then filed suit in federal court in the Northern District of Texas, arguing that the federal prohibition on direct sales of handguns by FFL’s to out of state residents unconstitutionally violated their rights under the Second Amendment and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

---