If you want to buy a gun from someone in another state, it can’t be shipped directly to you. You have to have it sent through an FFL holder so you’ll undergo all the background check rigamarole. It doesn’t actually stop gun trafficking, as we know from so many anti-gun states complaining about bad guys supposedly getting firearms from pro-gun states.
Still, it’s the law, and if you don’t want to end up in prison, you follow the law.
Even if it’s stupid.
However, one New York felon is challenging the law, and his attorneys are using Bruen to do it.
A Second Circuit panel Thursday grappled with whether federal regulations on interstate gun transportation violate the constitutional right to bear arms, as New Yorker Steven Perez claims.
In 2020, Perez illegally received firearms from an unlicensed dealer in South Carolina, who sent the guns to Perez in New York City. Federal prosecutors say that Perez ran afoul of a provision in U.S. law that prohibits the transfer or receipt of out-of-state firearms other than through a federally licensed dealer.
Perez was later arrested, charged and convicted for the violation. He’s serving a 16-month prison sentence, which will be followed by three years of supervised release.
But Perez claims his conviction should be vacated, as the crimes he was charged for violate his Second Amendment rights.
“The statute at issue in this case regulates and imposes burdens on an individual’s acquisition of firearms,” Kendra Hutchinson, a federal public defender representing Perez, told a trio of Second Circuit judges on Thursday. “This critical right to acquire firearms is core to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”
To make her case, Hutchinson tapped the landmark 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, in which the court struck down a requirement to show proper cause when applying for a concealed carry permit.
Now, does he have a point?
Well, I think he does, at least under Bruen.
That decision presented the argument that for a gun control law to be constitutional, it requires that there be a historic analog for it. Rahimi later “clarified” the ruling by saying the analog doesn’t have to be a one-to-one kind of thing, but there still has to be a historic parallel to the law in question.
On the issue of guns being shipped from one private party to another, the historic record is nonexistent so far as I’m aware. Unless something is lurking out there that I don’t know about–which is more than possible as I might be a history buff, I’m not all-knowing by any stretch of the imagination. Just ask my wife–I don’t see how this doesn’t fail the Bruen history, text, and tradition test.
But the Constitution does give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see that invoked here. No, I don’t think I’m “giving information to the enemy” because I’d be very surprised to find out that government attorneys have never thought about this.
I’m also not suggesting I support this. Just because the authority may exist doesn’t mean it should be used. Besides, as I already noted, it’s not like the laws regarding interstate sales of firearms have actually stopped gun trafficking in any way. Laws shouldn’t just exist for the sake of existing. Even if you support the idea behind the law, if it doesn’t inhibit the action you’re trying to inhibit, particularly with criminals, then that law should be repealed. Leaving them on the books just because is stupid.
This is going to be an interesting case to watch, though.
Read the full article here
