Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Federal Ban on Interstate Handgun Sales Under Second Amendment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down the federal ban on direct interstate handgun sales on Friday, ruling that the government cannot force buyers to route out-of-state purchases through an in-state dealer.

In a 2-1 decision, the panel reversed a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit and entered judgment for the plaintiffs, immediately blocking the enforcement of the 1968 restriction within its jurisdiction. The Department of Justice now faces a choice between seeking an en banc rehearing before the full Fifth Circuit or appealing directly to the Supreme Court.[1][5]

Since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922 has prohibited individuals from directly acquiring a handgun outside their state of residence. While buyers can purchase rifles and shotguns across state lines provided the sale complies with the laws of both states, handgun purchasers must have the firearm shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee in their home state to complete the background check and transfer.[1][5]

The lawsuit, Elite Precision Customs v. ATF, was brought by a Texas-based firearms dealer and two out-of-state residents, Tim Herron of New Mexico and Freddie Blish of Arizona, alongside the Firearms Policy Coalition. The plaintiffs argued that the mandatory secondary transfer imposes additional fees—often between $30 and $40—and delays the acquisition of the firearm, functioning as an unconstitutional burden on a fundamental right.[1][2][3]

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, joined by Judge Kurt Engelhardt, applied the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen framework. The court first determined that the Second Amendment's plain text covers the transaction, holding that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to purchase them. "The Ban sullies the plain text of the Second Amendment and is inconsistent with the nation's tradition of firearms regulation, dating back to the founding era," Smith wrote.[1][4][5]

Because the conduct is protected, the burden shifted to the federal government to prove the ban is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Department of Justice attorneys cited colonial and early-American laws involving wartime arms controls, exports between separate sovereigns, and trade with Native American tribes as historical analogues for the modern restrictions.[1][5]

The Fifth Circuit rejected those analogues, concluding that the government failed to cite a single law from the founding through the 19th century that barred a nonresident from acquiring a firearm outside their state. Judge Smith wrote that the government's defense "stretches the historical record far beyond what it can actually bear," noting that the modern ban categorically eliminates an entire class of otherwise lawful purchases.[1][2][5]

The majority also explicitly rejected the argument that the in-state transfer requirement is merely a minor commercial regulation or an acceptable workaround. The court stated that the requirement "invariably calls for the payment of a fee over and above the cost of a handgun," and warned that courts "must pause before endorsing a cost attached to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right."[4][5]

AI

Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes dissented from the ruling. She agreed with the district court's 2025 decision to dismiss the case, arguing that the provisions of the Gun Control Act function as reasonable commercial restrictions designed to prevent individuals from evading their home states' gun laws, rather than an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.[1][5]

The Fifth Circuit's ruling creates a direct conflict with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously upheld the same federal ban in United States v. Vereen. The Fifth Circuit majority explicitly acknowledged this divergence, stating, "We reject the Second Circuit's approach." This circuit split significantly increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will eventually take up the issue to establish a uniform national standard.[2][5]