TexasCHLforum.com

Updates (you may need to re-read the above posts):

The DOJ appealed the trial court's ruling against the ban on interstate sales of handguns, and a panel of the 5th Circuit Court heard the appeal. In January 2018 the panel reversed the trial court's judgment. The plaintiff, via attorney Alan Gura, asked for an en banc rehearing, but the 5th Circuit voted 8-7, just this past July, to NOT grant a hearing. (Note that President Trump's nominees to the 5th Circuit, Willet and Ho, both voted to rehear the case).

Plaintiff is appealing to the SCOTUS, and has a deadline of 18 October (I think) to present his written petition for appeal. Gura has a full dance card with several other SCOTUS and Circuit level court actions, and is asking for a 60 day extension to 17 Dec.

This is a link to his petition for the extension, which is mostly procedural stuff, but does discuss the case at hand a bit also:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 3_App2.pdf

C-dub wrote: DOJ did apply for a stay and it was denied.

I know. I posted the link to that.

But in that case the DOJ applied to the same (trial) court that ruled against them in the first place. My comment above is that I have read the DOJ can also apply for a stay from the appeals court (the next level up), while they are working on their actual appeal.

C-dub wrote:Does this mean that if I'm traveling out of state on vacation and see a handgun I like, I can purchase it and take possession of it at that time yet? That's what it sounds like.

At this particular moment, I think "technically yes," but I doubt you'll find an FFL who is ready to do this just yet. I read elsewhere that the DOJ can also apply for a stay from the appeals court, but I don't know if that is correct or not.

Stay denied!
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/20 ... ested.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jumping Frog wrote: ...
This ruling does not apply at all to BudsGunShop (Kentucky) unless or until the day that the SCOTUS upholds the ruling.

Dave Hardy points out that the court ordered the Attorney General to not enforce certain parts of the law, and therefore, if he did so even in another jurisdiction he may be violating the order and subject to contempt of court proceedings in the Northern District of Texas. That would be interesting to see.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2015/02/ban.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In any case I'll bet the order will be stayed while it is appealed.


Schadenfreude alert! A commenter over at Clayton Cramer's blog points out that this decision was made possible by Sarah Brady and the Brady law. Clayton notes an original justification for the law was that an FFL in another state could not get a background check done on an out-of-state buyer in the old days, but now with the NICS (courtesy of the Brady Law), a background check can be done anywhere in the nation on any one from another place, so there's no reason to restrict FFL sales to any buyer. Thanks to Sarah, and to Al Gore for inventing the innerwebs.