Court holds that 2nd does not protect right to sell firearms
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Court holds that 2nd does not protect right to sell firearms

  1. #1

    Court holds that 2nd does not protect right to sell firearms

    In United States v. Chafin, the court upheld a conviction for selling a firearm to a person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is an unlawful user of drugs in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3). The court held that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to sell firearms.

    Here, Chafin contends that his conduct–the sale of a firearm to an unlawful user of drugs–falls within the historical scope of the Second Amendment. However, Chafin has not pointed this court to any authority, and we have found none, that remotely suggests that, at the time of its ratification, the Second Amendment was understood to protect an individual’s right to sell a firearm. Indeed, although the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, it does not necessarily give rise to a corresponding right to sell a firearm.
    The full opinion can be read here: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: Second Amendment does not Protect Right to Sell Firearms

  2.   
  3. #2
    handgonnetoter Guest
    Well, that does not surprise me any there. That is an area of gray where the anti-gun people will exploit for sure. Now that the SC decided that, brace for laws against the sale of any firearm from one person to another.

  4. #3
    This is one of the instances in which "bad cases make bad laws."

    Had the case been about a municipality banning the sale of all firearms it might have been decided differently.

    The problem is that most of the post-Heller cases involve criminals trying to use Heller to get out of firearms violations or enhanced sentences due to use of a firearm in the commission of their crime.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    The problem is that most of the post-Heller cases involve criminals trying to use Heller to get out of firearms violations or enhanced sentences due to use of a firearm in the commission of their crime.
    Actually, most landmark decisions regarding Constitutional rights comes from criminals. Terry v. Ohio, for example. Think about how many police stops of law abiding citizens have gotten smacked down in court because of the Terry ruling that reasonable suspicion must exist. For example:

    Alamogordo police pay $21,000 to settle open carry lawsuit - Washington DC gun rights | Examiner.com

    Alamogordo police pay $21,000 to settle open carry lawsuit
    So....sometimes criminals trying to get out of convictions works in our favor.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993
    Quote Originally Posted by handgonnetoter View Post
    Well, that does not surprise me any there. That is an area of gray where the anti-gun people will exploit for sure. Now that the SC decided that, brace for laws against the sale of any firearm from one person to another.
    This was not the SCOTUS. This was the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    When it gets to the SCOTUS, they can find that the right to buy a gun must needs be come with a concommittant right to sell a gun by pulling a Roe v. Wade and discovering the "emanations from the penumbra of the 2nd Amendment."
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  7. #6
    handgonnetoter Guest
    OK. They way I read that was that SCOTUS decided that. I don't know about you people, but I am about sick and tired of the anti-gun idiots getting in the way of the past time I love.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast