Can this be changed post-McDonald?

[gd-bh]

Is it possible that the restriction to only purchase a handgun in your state of residence might go away post-McDonald? I can buy a car, or a sword, or a kitchen knife, or a chainsaw anywhere, why not a handgun, especially if RKBA is now a fundamental right? I would assume that it's not low hanging fruit, but I was just wondering if there is any sort of legal argument against being denied the ability to exercise a fundamental right in 49 of the 50 states I can freely go to anytime I like?

[bwiese]

There's already litigation by SAF (Gura) - Hodgkins v. Holder - challenging residency requirements.

This involves two expatriate American citizens, not a residents of any of the 50 states and living in England or Canada, nevertheless wanting to acquire a firearm in the US for legal purposes. The stated purpose of firearms acquisition is for legal use, with safe stoarge, within the US.

http://www.saf.org/legal.action/dc.expat.lawsuit/r_expats_complaint_09.pdf

[navyinrwanda]

[navyinrwanda]

There's already litigation by SAF (Gura) - Hodgkins v. Holder - challenging residency requirements.

This involves two expatriate American citizens, not a residents of any of the 50 states and living in England or Canada, nevertheless wanting to acquire a firearm in the US for legal purposes. The stated purpose of firearms acquisition is for legal use, with safe stoarge, within the US.

http://www.saf.org/legal.action/dc.e...mplaint_09.pdf

This case is already on appeal. The district court dismissed it on a bit of a Catch-22 Lack of Jurisdiction motion.

[IrishPirate]

I'm going to say yes....eventually. Seeing as the right is now protected as a fundamental right, we should be able to buy/sell in any state. Of course, we can probably expect some sort of huge tax on out of state purchases/sales, but I'm betting that we'll soon be able to buy from ANY US state in the near future. It just takes time to run through the court circus...i mean ciruits

[bwiese]

This case is already on appeal. The district court dismissed it on a bit of a Catch-22 Lack of Jurisdiction motion.

Yes, I know.

But the faster we lose cases at the lower level the better off we are.

[navyinrwanda]

Yes, I know.

But the faster we lose cases at the lower level the better off we are.

True, but this case is in a somewhat unique conundrum, as the government is using an unusual case that applies only to the D.C. District to argue that the plaintiffs lack standing (Navegar v. U.S.). I'm not exactly sure that they can prevail without either an en banc ruling or a successful SCOTUS cert (which, in time, they may very well get).

Isn't there another factset post-McDonald that could be developed to challenge residency requirements?

[dantodd]

I'm not exactly sure that they can prevail without either an en banc ruling or a successful SCOTUS cert (which, in time, they may very well get).

That's exactly what Bill said. The faster we can get up to SCOTUS the better we are. The rulings are almost impossible to overturn and we need to get there while we have the Heller 5 intact. Plus the more of these we can bring up the more and more angry SCOTUS will get at the recalcitrant courts and the more narrowly they are likely to box the courts in to prevent further cases from being wrongly decided and this is GOOD for us.

[Sinixstar]

True, but this case is in a somewhat unique conundrum, as the government is using an unusual case that applies only to the D.C. District to argue that the plaintiffs lack standing (Navegar v. U.S.). I'm not exactly sure that they can prevail without either an en banc ruling or a successful SCOTUS cert (which, in time, they may very well get).

Isn't there another factset post-McDonald that could be developed to challenge residency requirements?

Here's how I see it...

By the very definition of the findings in Heller and McDonald - 2A gets Strict Scrutiny.
Part of strict scrutiny is that "no other less restrictive policy could achieve the same affect" (paraphrasing).

The interstate restrictions were put in place to enforce the same restrictions that the Brady Bill enforces. No felons, no wanted fugitives, no crazies, no wants or warrants, etc.

One could argue then that, with NICS, not only is the root cause for interstate restrictions no longer valid - but that there is actually a more effective AND less restrictive means of achieving the same outcome. Interstate restrictions have essentially become obsolete, as technology has allowed the public-safety interests to be satisfied regardless of geographic location.

Is that something we could try for?

[navyinrwanda]

That's exactly what Bill said. The faster we can get up to SCOTUS the better we are. The rulings are almost impossible to overturn and we need to get there while we have the Heller 5 intact. Plus the more of these we can bring up the more and more angry SCOTUS will get at the recalcitrant courts and the more narrowly they are likely to box the courts in to prevent further cases from being wrongly decided and this is GOOD for us.

While I'm not familiar with the intimate details of this case, its broad strokes make me wonder if it puts forward the best plaintiffs (expats) to void federal residency restrictions. It may be just a bit too clever...

[dantodd]

While I'm not familiar with the intimate details of this case, its broad strokes make me wonder if it puts forward the best plaintiffs (expats) to void federal residency restrictions. It may be just a bit too clever...

Using expats means the government can't claim the burden to buy guns in your state of residence is not excessive. See, these guys have no state of residence in which they COULD buy guns.

[hoffmang]

Fixing standing in DC is extremely important. The Federal Government got this case thrown out of two other Districts including the 5th Circuit to send it to DC. We have a strong likelihood of prevailing in this case and the fact pattern is absolutely the best challenge to the residency purchase requirements.

It may take a win at appeals/en-banc and a return to the lower court to win it though.

-Gene

[Jared1981]

The residency requirement is toast

The residency requirement is toast, the government even under the lowest level of scrutiny must carry the burden of proof. How is you buying a gun in Ohio via NICS any different than buying one in California via NICS, it's the same background check under federal law.

Of course with Obama appointing new justices (and hopefully not anymore), they will say whatever they need to to restrict all RKBA rights.

[dantodd]

It's really simple. SCOTUS says I have a right to a handgun as a U.S. Citizen. Where can I buy said handgun if I am an ex-patriot?

Of course with Obama appointing new justices (and hopefully not anymore)

While completely OT I will say that it is quite likely that Obama with be replacing Ginsberg. I just don't see her staying on another 6 years after the death of her husband, and if she sees Obama is likely to lose re-election she will probably bail out in his first term.

[383green]

Wouldn't eliminating the residency requirement moot the CA roster, since one could then presumably go buy a gun in another state?