Judge Denies Stay in Handgun Transfer Ban Case

[DA 20]

Will Judge O’Connor’s latest ruling against ATF lead to another ammo ban?
I covered the federal court ruling in Mance v. Holder in some detail last month, and if you haven’t yet had an opportunity to get up to speed on that decision it might be useful to take a moment to click over: Federal Court: Handgun Transfer Ban Unconstitutional. (That post includes the full-length ruling.)
In brief, in Mance v. Holder US District Court Judge Reed O’Connor found that the federal interstate handgun transfer ban was unconstitutional on its face–specifically, the provision that requires an out-of-state handgun purchaser to transfer the handgun through several FFLs before taking possession.
Most interestingly, Judge O’Connor found the requirement to be an unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd Amendment under both strict and intermediate scrutiny, as well as an unconstitutional infringement of the 5th Amendment under strict scrutiny.
As observed in our earlier post on the subject:
Based on its conclusion that the federal handgun transfer ban was, both facially and as applied to the facts of this case, unconstitutional under both strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for Summary Judgment (thus granting them victory without having to go to trial), and enjoined the Defendants (AG Holder and ATF(E) Director Jones) from enforcing those provisions of the federal handgun transfer ban.
As expected the federal government requested a 60-day state of his ruling.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/03/judge-denies-stay-in-handgun-transfer-ban-case/

 

[Dave70968]

The trouble is that the ruling only applies in Judge O'Connor's district, which is only in Texas; the statute (18 U.S.C. 922) criminalizes both sending and receiving, so either the sender or the receiver wouldn't be covered by the ruling.

It's a start, but the practical effect is next to nil.

 

[OKNewshawk]

The trouble is that the ruling only applies in Judge O'Connor's district, which is only in Texas; the statute (18 U.S.C. 922) criminalizes both sending and receiving, so either the sender or the receiver wouldn't be covered by the ruling.

It's a start, but the practical effect is next to nil.

So is the fall of the first domino--until it hits the next one in line.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

So is the fall of the first domino--until it hits the next one in line.

And, I think that's what the Feds expect with their efforts to ban 5.56. First one caliber then another, then another....