Mance v. Holder Interstate Transfer (handguns)Summary Judgement

[jon_berzerk]

-plaintiffs-the Hansons homeowners -winners

-defendants feds -holder -losers

“federal interstate handgun transfer ban,”- unconstitutional

hansons in dc attempt to directly purchase handguns from FFL in Texas

Mance v Holder Interstate Transfer PDF

 

[Ernie S.]

Dayum! Just saved me $50 per purchase.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Dayum! Just saved me $50 per purchase.

in the fifth district perhaps

but i would wait a little longer

but good start

 

[hortysir]

Gotta read this when I get home

 

[Ernie S.]

Not certain, but don't federal courts decisions affect the whole country?

 

[Ernie S.]

Gotta read this when I get home

I read most of it. The bottom line is the law is unconstitutional.


IV.CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing (ECF No. 15) is DENIED . It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED , and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment(ECF No. 15) is DENIED 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.
SO ORDERED on this 11th day of February, 2015
.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Not certain, but don't federal courts decisions affect the whole country?

this is one of several districts the fifth

the feds are almost certainly set to ask for a stay

then we will see if the feds appeal

and if other similar cases come up in other districts

it surely is a positive judgement for the 2nd amendment

 

[jon_berzerk]

Gotta read this when I get home

I read most of it. The bottom line is the law is unconstitutional.


IV.CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing (ECF No. 15) is DENIED . It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED , and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment(ECF No. 15) is DENIED 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.
SO ORDERED on this 11th day of February, 2015
.

i would bet that many courts would favor such a ruling