*HELL YES!* GO SAF!!

 

Title: SAF CHALLENGES INTERSTATE HANDGUN SALES BAN

 

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Virginia challenging the constitutionality of federal and Virginia provisions barring handgun sales to non-residents.

 

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Michelle Lane, a District of Columbia resident who cannot legally purchase handguns because there are no retail firearms dealers inside the District. The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller ruling struck down the District’s handgun ban, confirming that individuals have a constitutional right to possess handguns.

 

SAF and Lane are represented by attorney Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, who won both the Heller ruling and last year’s Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Named as defendants are Attorney General Eric Holder and W. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of the Virginia State Police.

 

“This is an important issue in the era of the national instant background check,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The NICS check should allow law-abiding citizens like Miss Lane to exercise their Second Amendment rights regardless their place of residence.”

 

“Americans don’t check their constitutional rights at the state line,” said Gura. “And since Michelle Lane is legally entitled to possess firearms, forcing her to seek a non-existing D.C. dealer to buy a handgun is pointless when perfectly legitimate options exist minutes across the Potomac River.”

 

Source: http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=356

I am so proud to be a life member of this organization. I am going to go donate some more money right now! You should all do the same!

I to am a very proud life member and they are on my donation list as well.

SAF Rocks !!!

Interesting. Goodbye OGAM, goodbye PPP.

 

If NJ doesn't change it's laws, the gun shops are going to have a pretty hard time staying in business.

 

 

If NJ doesn't change it's laws, the gun shops are going to have a pretty hard time staying in business.

 

They will move to other states just like so many other businesess in NJ have done. It doesn't make sense to do business in this state on so many levels

Sorry to bump this old thread but this case has been petitioned for a writ of certiorari and conference was held yesterday. Tuesday we may know if it was granted or not.

I bet you had to re-type the above like four times before the auto spell correction gave up.

So glad to hear this. Long live the necro-thread!

I bet you had to re-type the above like four times before the auto spell correction gave up.

 

Nah I turned that off. 

So glad to hear this. Long live the necro-thread!

 

I am a bit concerned though because Woollard was also on Friday's conference. So if the SCOTUS decides to take one gun case I would rather have them take Woollard. 

This would be a huge win for NJ residents who like handguns.

Some good-ish news if you believe no news is good news. This was not in this morning's denial orders. So either it was held or will be denied later in the day. 

If NJ doesn't change it's laws, the gun shops are going to have a pretty hard time staying in business.

 

I don't think that anyone in Trenton would shed a tear if the gun shop population dropped to single FFL to service everyone.

I don't think that anyone in Trenton would shed a tear if the gun shop population dropped to single FFL to service everyone.

I'm pretty sure they'd lose some sleep if that happened and it didn't negatively impact the population's access to firearms one bit.

 

I think they'd go ballistic if it allowed us to also bypass nj nics.

 

 

 

 

I'd buy everything in a different state out of principle

Now it gets really strange. It wasn't in this morning's orders either. 

What are the possibilities of what this could mean?

 

I'd buy everything in a different state out of principle

 

 

Although the option to buy out of state would be nice, it's better for everyone to have civilian gun shops in Jersey than not to have them. Don't turn on the gun shops.

I believe cert was denied.

I believe cert was denied.

So what does this mean in plain language?

I believe cert was denied.

 

Last entry for it on the supreme court web site was that petition was filed and that it was distributed for conference at the beginning of october. 

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-1401.htm

 

cert being denied would mean the court says they aren't oging to hear it and the ruling of the lower court stands. 

This is a fantastic summary of the state of play of 2A cases at the Supreme Court.  Apparently, the Court has not rejected the Lane case re interstate sales of handguns.  They have not yet decided whether to hear the case.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/28/1250584/-60-Cases-and-Counting-What-Gun-Case-Will-SCOTUS-Take-Next

This would be nice considering NJ handgun buying laws are the most idiotic.

Cert was NOT denied. It was held. I wonder why. 

Saw the orders came out today and looks like 12-1401 still held...

Getting a thrill up my leg for this one. 

Cert was NOT denied. It was held. I wonder why. 

 

My guess is becuase the existence of DC is a legal abomination, and it screws things up royally. 

 

If you let it stand that you can't cross borders to exercise a right that cannot be exercised where you live, you have no right. Which would contradict the courts ruling in Heller, and head down the road of making the case that incorporation of an amendment means absolutely nothing, and states (or state like entities) can eliminate rights with zero consequences. 

 

If you say you can, you are establishing limits on the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce, which they have abused to hell and back and is the foundation of most federal regulation at least since I have been alive. (ACA would be an exception as it can touch on the public welfare issue). In addition to that, you are saying that a state (or state like entity) cannot regulate a right differently than the federal government regulates it. Which is a mess for states rights, and potentially brings up privileges and immunities which was stomped to death in fit of racism by a previous supreme court, and the current justices openly refused to approach with a ten foot pole in heller because reinstating it would basically leave the courts flooded with rehashing 150 years of court cases that have operated ont he precedent that it is a clause of an amendment that does not count. The only way out would seem to say that just DC can't do this, and the court starts making rules for them, except that means that they are taking a power granted by law to congress into the judicial branch. 

 

It's a messy, messy case. 

But they can't just leave the case in limbo forever. They have to s*** or get off the pot. 

But they can't just leave the case in limbo forever. They have to s*** or get off the pot.

No, they can drag out cert while they figure out what to do. I suspect the delay is debate rather than ignoring it. Other than Obama, the notion that if everyone gets screwed and it works for nobody isn't generally accepted as the best solution, even on capital hill.

NOW its getting interesting. Actually has some traction and getting more than a thanx but no thanx from them