5th Circuit finds the ban on direct interstate sale of handguns unconstitutional.

[pancakes]

wouldnt this just apply to consignment / ppt for us ?

 

[Gawernator]

For those planning road trips to Reno: this ruling only covers TX, Louisiana and Mississippi. We should book the one-way to DFW. We just can't bring stuff back

What's next is magazine cap limits w/ circuit split between the 3rd and 9th Circuits. SCOTUS has that case on the docket for conference right now. After that AR features ban should go (oral arguments Dec 2). The Glock ban could also fall apart if the broader roster framework collapses under Boland.

The CA roster is here to stay and it's going to be the LAST domino not the first. What falls before the roster is the requirement to go through a CA FFL on interstate purchases. Once 27585 gets struck down the roster becomes irrelevant because it only controls what CA dealers can sell not what you can own.

Unless the lawsuit moves fast enough

 

[Charles0413]

May be a felony, but I personally know 2 people who do this regularly. Not a risk I’d take, myself! But if I know two people, there must be thousands already doing this

“you know 2 people”, hahah, we know.

 

[miles888]

That’s for transfer from a family member not what this convo is about

My bad I get confused with all the hypothetical rambling and fake news

 

[miles888]

Long story short nothing actually happened

 

[kemasa]

I think everyone may be focusing on the wrong reporting statute.

§ 27560 is the new-resident/personal-firearm-importer provision, so I agree there is an argument over what “within 60 days after bringing” means there.

But what about PC § 28000?

That separately allows a person who is not otherwise required by law to report acquisition/ownership, or who is exempt from § 27545, to voluntarily submit a Firearm Ownership Report. DOJ specifically says an individual Firearm Ownership Report establishes/populates an AFS record, and AFS is the registry established under § 11106.

Then § 27585(b)(14)(A) expressly says § 27585 does not apply to:

“The importation, transportation, or bringing of a firearm into the state by a person” who “is listed in the registry set forth in Section 11106 as the owner of the firearm.”

So wouldn't the real question be whether a person who lawfully acquires the firearm out of state can submit a § 28000 Firearm Ownership Report while the firearm remains out of state, become listed in AFS as the owner, and then subsequently fall within § 27585(b)(14)(A)?

That seems like a much stronger statutory argument than trying to use § 27560 before importation.

I’m not saying a court has approved that sequence, but I don’t see language in § 27585(b)(14)(A) saying the firearm had to have previously been in California or previously DROSed here. If there is another provision that prevents § 28000 from being used that way, that is the section I’d be interested in seeing.

There seems to be a possible pathway but you are risking being a test case for CADOJ.

@kemasa

Why did you link my name in your post?

 

[Gawernator]

Why did you link my name in your post?

You were talking about this in the other comment

 

[Enthused]

I can legally carry a concealed firearm on me in Arizona, Nevada, and many other states, but I can't buy a firearm there despite being there already with a legally carried firearm already on me?

This reminds me of finishing a DROS and having to wait for a 10 day cooldown period despite having a loaded firearm on me at that very moment.

You can't make this make sense. Having an active CCW permit should exempt you from most of these Democrat gun restrictions.

Hopefully these laws will be flushed down the toilet soon.

 

[mbuss101]

I can legally carry a concealed firearm on me in Arizona, Nevada, and many other states, but I can't buy a firearm there despite being there already with a legally carried firearm already on me?

This reminds me of finishing a DROS and having to wait for a 10 day cooldown period despite having a loaded firearm on me at that very moment.

You can't make this make sense. Having an active CCW permit should exempt you from most of these Democrat gun restrictions.

Hopefully these laws will be flushed down the toilet soon.

Yeah that’s always my favorite head scratcher. I dros’d a staccato P4, came in to pick it up and they had just started putting the hd3.6 on the shelf. Staff said they’d let me transfer my payment to a 3.6 instead at no additional fee or restocking but I’d have to wait another 10 days because it’s a separate transaction. This happened while I’m standing in the store with a valid CCW and a G19 on me lol

 

[kemasa]

I can legally carry a concealed firearm on me in Arizona, Nevada, and many other states, but I can't buy a firearm there despite being there already with a legally carried firearm already on me?

This reminds me of finishing a DROS and having to wait for a 10 day cooldown period despite having a loaded firearm on me at that very moment.

You can't make this make sense. Having an active CCW permit should exempt you from most of these Democrat gun restrictions.

Hopefully these laws will be flushed down the toilet soon.

If it makes sense, it likely isn't going to happen with the government, but then sometimes they do things which make sense, perhaps to confuse people.

I forget the year it changed, but for many years as a dealer, sole proprietor, when a firearm was transferred the FFL had to keep it from themselves for 15 days (the waiting period plus 5 days for the mail). I don't recall the year. A search claims it was 1996, but then also said that the exemption box for FFLs didn't exist until 2014.

Remember there is a lawsuit regarding the waiting period, which stated it was unconstitutional, but it is on appeal.