Firearms News by Mark Chesnut 4/7/2023
Basing arguments on the recent Bruen court decision, a new court case in Pennsylvania challenges the entire concept of requiring an FFL to sell firearms.A court case out of Pennsylvania is calling into question whether the law requiring those in the business of selling firearms to have a federal firearms license (FFL) is constitutional, considering the new criteria set down by the U.S. Supreme Court in last year’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case.
And despite the fact that being in the business of selling firearms has required an FFL for as long as most of us can remember, any court faithfully applying the two-prong standard as prescribed in Bruen just might not see this one the government’s way.
The case revolves around Amish dairy farmer Reuben King from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who has been charged with dealing in firearms without a license. According to court papers, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) purchased five firearms from King at his farm between October 2019 and March 2020. After being sent a letter informing him that he couldn’t be selling firearms without a license, King sold four firearms to undercover state troopers in late 2021 and 2022. ATF later arrested King and confiscated 615 firearms.
Rather than arguing that King didn’t sell the firearms, King’s attorney, Joshua Prince, is instead arguing that King doesn’t need an FFL to sell guns because the FFL requirement itself is unconstitutional.
More:
https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/ffl-court-case/471630
