I don’t know of one tangible item that is restricted to purchase based on where one lives if that item is legal in both places.
Yet for handguns, for the longest time a person has been limited to what is available within their home state. I don’t know about you but I have purchased cars and motorcycles in different states because I like the bigger selection and the lower prices.
Of course, gun hating Nazi’s like Eric Holder have long since been against any type of freedom when it comes to the Second Amendment.
From the Washington Times report:
In the case, federally licensed firearms dealer Frederic Russell Mance Jr. of Texas and gun buyers Tracey and Andrew Hanson sued Mr. Holder and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones claiming the federal ban on the sale of handguns outside of one’s state stops the formation of a national handgun market.
The Hansons, who live in Washington, visited Mr. Mance’s Texas store in June and were unable to buy handguns because of the ban. The ban effectively “reduces competition, raises prices and limits consumer choices,” their joint lawsuit, which was filed in July, alleged.
Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice aimed to dismiss the suit, claiming the plaintiffs had no standing, and were dealt no harm. Mr. Holder also argued, the Second Amendment is “silent” as to the ability to sell or buy handguns “in any particular forum” and that courts have “repeatedly declined” to rule that right is protected.
Herr Holder’s argument was that the plaintiffs should be denied their day in court to begin with because:
“Here, the court’s inquiry can end at step one because the challenged laws do not impose any burden, let alone a substantial burden, on conduct historically protected by the Second Amendment.”
Apparently Holder hates that he even has to show up to work and would rather deny the peons their due process. As for the burden? To that I reply “Shall not be infringed.” One can make the argument that the founding fathers couldn’t know what an automatic weapon was but they cannot say that the founding fathers did NOT know what interstate commerce was.
To deny the purchase of a handgun when you are out of your state is not only an affront to the 2nd Amendment but also to commerce itself and the bedrock of capitalism.
Hmmm…now that I write it I can see why Eric Holder and the Obama administration have such an interest in keeping the people penned in.
Fortunately, the courts got it right and a federal court in Texas has ruled that residency requirement for handgun purchases is unconstitutional.
“The Court finds that defendants’ motion to dismiss should be and is hereby denied. Defendants argue Mance has suffered no injury…As stated above, Mance was unable to consummate the sale of handguns to the Hansons… the loss of sale is clearly an injury to Mance in his own right.”
“The Court finds that the federal interstate handgun transfer ban burdens conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment.”
“Thus, even under intermediate scrutiny, the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is unconstitutional on its face.”
It will probably take a little while to get it all straightened out and ruled at the higher levels but what it means is that if you live on a border of a state and there is a gun shop across state lines with a sale you can get your blue light special on.
It means that if you are on vacation and find yourself with the need or desire to pick up a new sidearm while on your trip you can.
It means that the vice grip that the tyrannical government holds upon the 2nd Amendment is slipping..ever so slightly…but slipping nonetheless.
Send this to friend