12

Texas Judge strikes down 1968 law on firearms

Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 10 months ago to Government
12 comments | Share | Flag

A step in the right direction. It will probably wind up in the Supreme Court, but that will still be a few years.


All Comments

  • Posted by NealS 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I realize that, it just irks me a bit that I have a permit to carry, but I can't buy out of state without having it shipped to an FFL. Free interstate commerce. Perhaps the carry permit should also authorize purchase in other states. It does authorize purchase and immediate transfer in Washington State.

    Many of the laws we have today have nothing to do with their supposed intent. Many are just revenue generators and only enacted to make the innocent guilty. It all amounts to control, registration, government employment, and enforcement to make it happen. Hopefully the suppressor laws will disappear then perhaps I can sue the government for my loss of hearing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is the federal prohibition on "straw purchases", which has been around for decades at least.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 7 years, 9 months ago
    The recent case Perata v. California tried to establish a right to carry, or at least to force California to make its discretionary issue of carry permits less arbitrary. But only 2 members of the Supreme Court voted to hear the case. (It takes 4, on the theory that a case that four justices believe may have merit might convince a fifth.)

    So any further improvement of gun rights, at least in the 9th circuit, will have to wait until at least one more conservative, maybe two, is on the Supreme Court.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Casebier 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It will, especially if this Judge O'Connor replaces the O'Connor that currently sits on the high court.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph23006 7 years, 9 months ago
    Since all states have agreed to the Constitution, they cannot now create parameters outside the words of the Second Amendment, neither can Congress unless it's willing to open a Convention which may prove to be not in the best interest of the nation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 7 years, 9 months ago
    A step in the right direction. I'm wonder if that dealer in Arizona still has that piece I wanted the last time I was down there. I was going to have my friend, an Arizona resident, buy it for me, when I found out I couldn't. I was then told they wouldn't sell it to anyone now for awhile because they were aware it would probably be for me. I was astounded, but took their word for it. Is this something like having to commit the crime before being accused of iit?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Or the Miller case - where the People side could not afford to show up for the SCOTUS trial and the government blatantly lied.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Animal 7 years, 10 months ago
    This was two years ago. Has anything changed in actual practice?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 7 years, 10 months ago
    Yay! Up until now, I never considered buying a firearm out-of-state for living in a centralized portion of Alabama.
    I'm age 70 always supportive of gaining more freedom after spending most of my years of watching freedom shrink.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 10 months ago
    Judge Reed O’Connor just added his name to the short list for the supreme court.

    Now, Judge O'Connor, about that unconstitutional 1934 National Firearms Act that was upheld only because there was no one to speak before the court for the rights of the people ...
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo