Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Legal & Legislation

Federal Court Holds Ban on Interstate Transfer of Handguns Unconstitutional

Friday, February 13, 2015

Federal Court Holds Ban on Interstate Transfer of Handguns Unconstitutional

On Wednesday, Judge Reed O’Conner of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an opinion and order in Mance v. Holder, holding provisions of federal law that generally prohibit the interstate sale of handguns to be unconstitutional.  Subject to very limited exceptions, the challenged federal law prohibited a federally licensed firearms dealer from transferring a handgun, but not a rifle or shotgun, to any non-licensed individual who resided in a state other than the state where the dealer’s business was located. 

The plaintiffs, a husband and wife from the District of Columbia and a Texas firearms dealer, wished to conduct a transfer of a handgun in Texas that the D.C. residents would then take back to their place of residence in D.C.  A significant motivation for the plaintiffs in seeking to buy a handgun outside of their state of residence is the complete lack of a stocking firearms dealer in the District.  There is only a single dealer in D.C. and, due in large part to D.C.'s byzantine regulatory scheme, he does not maintain any inventory. 

After establishing that the plaintiffs had sufficient standing to raise their claim, the court began its analysis of whether the interstate transfer ban violated the Second Amendment.  First, the court determined that it would evaluate the ban “facially” and as applied to the plaintiffs specific situation.  A successful facial challenge completely prohibits the enforcement of the challenged law, while a successful as-applied challenge only stops the government from enforcing the law against the plaintiff and those similarly situated.  Next, the court applied the two-step analytical framework adopted by the Fifth Circuit in National Rifle Association v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.  Under this framework, the reviewing court must first determine whether the challenged law regulates conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment and only then does the court determine the applicable level of judicial scrutiny and whether or not the law survives this level of scrutiny.

In the case of the interstate handgun transfer ban, the first step of the analysis was relatively easy for the court because the government could not offer evidence of any pre-20th century residency requirements for firearm acquisition and the ban applied specifically to handguns, a class of “arm” that the Supreme Court already clearly identified as being protected by the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller.  For these reasons, and because the ban generally applied to everyone who wished to acquire a handgun rather than a limited subset of the population or a small subset of “arms”, the court applied the highest level of judicial scrutiny at its disposal.

Having determined the applicable level of scrutiny, the court then evaluated the government’s supposed justification for the ban.  The government primarily argued that the ban was justified by Congress’s wish to reduce violent crime involving handguns.  It also advanced the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of individuals to sell firearms.  The court essentially dismissed the latter argument entirely and focused on the crime-reduction justification.  While the court found that the ban was indeed supported by a compelling governmental interest, the court determined that it was neither sufficiently narrowly tailored  or the least restrictive means of meeting this goal  because government’s justification completely ignored intervening changes to federal law since the ban’s enactment.  The court reasoned that the requirement that federally licensed dealers conduct a background check on any potential transferee, taken with the prohibition on dealers transferring a firearm to an individual that would violate that laws of the individual’s state of residence, ruled out any justification for the ban on interstate handgun transfers.  In fact, the court found that so little justification existed for the ban given the more recent additions to federal gun law, that the ban would not survive even a lower level of scrutiny. 

Interestingly, the ban that the executive branch vigorously defended in this case would have been repealed by a proposal that President Obama supported in 2013.  The court’s opinion in this case also shows the value of strict scrutiny when applied to gun-control laws, which is why NRA has supported measures in a number of states to require strict scrutiny in any case reviewing a law that burdens the right to keep and bear arms.  While the government has not yet signaled its intent to appeal, it is likely that the decision will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit. In the meantime, the government may seek to have the effect of the decision delayed pending the appeal.

To keep up-to-date on this and other court battles to protect and advance the Second Amendment, go to https://www.nraila.org/legal-legislation/legal-updates/

TRENDING NOW
Beto Going All-In on Confiscation

News  

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Beto Going All-In on Confiscation

Democrat Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke continues to struggle to gain any sort of traction for his campaign. With some polls putting him in 10th place, and his average sitting around 7th, some might say that it is desperation ...

Tell Your Lawmakers: No Semi-Auto and Magazine Ban!

News  

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Tell Your Lawmakers: No Semi-Auto and Magazine Ban!

The Democrat Party is now so aligned with gun control that every major candidate running for its 2020 presidential nomination recently appeared in a propaganda video produced by one of the nation’s most active firearm prohibition groups. ...

House Democrats Continue Unprecedented Push for More Gun Control

News  

Sunday, September 15, 2019

House Democrats Continue Unprecedented Push for More Gun Control

As was continually threatened while Congress was on its six-week Summer break, House Democrats hastily convened a hearing on Tuesday to promote their latest batch of anti-gun bills.  The House Judiciary Committee’s markup of three bills, ...

NRA Files Suit Against San Francisco for Violating First Amendment

News  

Sunday, September 15, 2019

NRA Files Suit Against San Francisco for Violating First Amendment

On September 3, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors smeared millions of law-abiding Americans by unanimously adopting a resolution that designated NRA a “domestic terrorist organization.” Less than one week later, on September 9, NRA filed a federal lawsuit ...

Playing Games with Numbers

News  

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Playing Games with Numbers

Stanford Law Professor John Donohue and Theodora Boulouta, a Stanford undergrad, wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times that claims their new research shows the 1994 “assault weapons” ban really did work.  Their finding is ...

NASCAR Takes a Hard Left

News  

Friday, August 30, 2019

NASCAR Takes a Hard Left

After decades of NASCAR drivers literally turning left for hours every race day (road course races excluded, of course), the governing body appears to be taking a figurative left turn, politically. K-Var, a retailer in outdoor and ...

New Hampshire: House to Vote on Gov. Sununu's Vetoes of Anti-Gun Bills

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

New Hampshire: House to Vote on Gov. Sununu's Vetoes of Anti-Gun Bills

On Wednesday, September 18th, the New Hampshire House of Representatives will vote on Governor Chris Sununu's vetoes of three anti-gun bills sent to his desk by the General Court.  Anti-gun Representatives who remain stubbornly committed to ...

California: 2019 Legislative Session Adjourns

Sunday, September 15, 2019

California: 2019 Legislative Session Adjourns

The California Legislature has adjourned the 2019 session resulting in the final passage of AB 12, AB 61, AB 879, AB 893, AB 1254, AB 1297, AB 1669, SB 61 and SB 172 which are now eligible ...

California: Carson City Council to Hear Unconstitutional Resolution Targeting Lawful Firearm Possession and Sales

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

California: Carson City Council to Hear Unconstitutional Resolution Targeting Lawful Firearm Possession and Sales

Today, September 17 at 5pm PST, the Carson City Council will be considering a late addition to this evening’s City Council meeting, Resolution 19-1693.  ​The resolution is being pushed by Mayor Albert Robles in an effort to prohibit firearm ...

Monday, August 19, 2019

Florida Alert! "Assault Weapons" Ban Amendment Bans ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS

The so-called "assault weapons" ban that is proposed for a constitutional amendment to be on the 2020 Election Ballot bans the possession of: “any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun CAPABLE of holding more than ten (10) rounds ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.