Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Sales Restrictions

Estimated Time to Read: 14 minutes

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down longstanding federal restrictions preventing Americans from directly purchasing handguns from federally licensed firearms dealers outside their state of residence.

In Elite Precision Customs v. ATF, a divided three-judge panel ruled on September 18 that several provisions of 18 U.S.C. 922 violate the Second Amendment. Writing for the majority, Judge Jerry Smith reversed a Northern District of Texas decision that had dismissed the challenge, and the court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs.

The decision is the latest in a series of significant firearms cases emerging from Texas and the Fifth Circuit, but it rests on a different constitutional foundation. Recent cases have examined Article III standing, private property rights, Congress's enumerated powers, and the National Firearms Act (NFA). Here, the Fifth Circuit confronted the Second Amendment directly, asking whether the federal government may categorically prohibit an otherwise eligible purchaser from directly buying a handgun from a federally licensed dealer in another state.

The ruling also puts the Fifth Circuit in direct conflict with the Second Circuit over essentially the same federal restrictions, potentially setting the stage for eventual U.S. Supreme Court review.

Federal Interstate Handgun Sales Restrictions Explained

Three provisions were at the center of the lawsuit: 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), and 922(b)(3). Taken together, they generally prevent an individual from directly acquiring a handgun outside his state of residence and prevent a federally licensed firearms dealer from directly delivering a handgun to an out-of-state resident. The plaintiffs also challenged a related ATF regulation, but the court did not address it separately because it mirrors the statute.

Federal law allows certain interstate sales of rifles and shotguns when the transaction complies with the laws of both states. There is no comparable exception allowing a federally licensed dealer to directly transfer a handgun to an otherwise eligible out-of-state purchaser.

An individual can still purchase a handgun from an out-of-state dealer, but the firearm generally must first be shipped to a federally licensed dealer in the buyer's home state. That dealer then completes the transfer.

The Fifth Circuit emphasized that this workaround is not automatic. A receiving dealer does not have to participate, the transfer typically involves an additional fee, and the process delays possession. The plaintiffs are Elite Precision Customs, a Mansfield-based custom firearms manufacturer and dealer; Tim Herron, a New Mexico resident; Freddie Blish, an Arizona resident; and the Firearms Policy Coalition. Herron said the process typically adds $30 to $40 to his purchases.

Elite Precision Customs v. ATF, Fifth Circuit, September 18, 2026

Two routes to the same handgun

Federal law makes an eligible buyer route an out-of-state handgun purchase through a second dealer back home. A divided Fifth Circuit panel held that requirement violates the Second Amendment.

Required today

Handgun bought from a dealer in another state

1. 1Buyer chooses a handgunat an out-of-state dealer
2. 2Ships to a second dealerin the buyer's home state
3. 3Second dealer transfersbackground check done here
4. 4Buyer takes possession
5. • The mandatory detour:
   • dealer may decline
   • added fee ($30–$40 for one plaintiff)
   • added wait

Direct route sought

Allowed for qualifying rifles and shotguns, never handguns

1. 1Buyer chooses a handgunat an out-of-state dealer
2. 2Selling dealer transfersbackground check still required, at the same counter
3. 3Buyer takes possession

Bruen step one: the text

Buying a handgun is protected.

The right to keep arms includes acquiring them. Unlike a background check, no amount of waiting makes the direct sale lawful, so the ban is a prohibition, not a condition of sale.

Bruen step two: history

No matching tradition.

Founding-era wartime, foreign-trade and quality rules did not resemble a peacetime ban on sales between residents of different states.

Where it stands

Not yet a green light.

The ruling splits with the Second Circuit (U.S. v. Vereen), and further review is possible. Confirm current federal and state law before any out-of-state transfer.

Challenged: 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), and 922(b)(3). Decided 2–1; Judge Jerry Smith wrote for the majority, and Judge Catharina Haynes dissented.

Lower Court Upheld the Interstate Gun Restrictions

The district court decision came from U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas in September 2025.

Pittman concluded that the restrictions regulated the manner in which firearms could be acquired rather than the right to keep and bear them. He characterized the additional transfer requirement as a modest burden involving additional time and cost and concluded that it helped prevent individuals from circumventing firearms laws in their home states.

That rationale reflects Congress's original purpose in adopting the restrictions in 1968. Congress was concerned that individuals could evade their states' gun laws by purchasing firearms elsewhere.

Because Pittman concluded that the restrictions did not implicate the Second Amendment's plain text, he stopped at the first stage of the constitutional analysis and did not conduct the historical analysis required when protected conduct is implicated.

The Fifth Circuit disagreed with that threshold conclusion.

Fifth Circuit Applies the Bruen Second Amendment Test

Under the Supreme Court's framework in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, courts first determine whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers the regulated conduct. If it does, the government must demonstrate that the restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the right to keep firearms necessarily encompasses the ability to purchase them. The majority therefore rejected the argument that the interstate restrictions were merely commercial conditions outside the Second Amendment's protection.

The availability of an intermediary dealer did not change that conclusion. Unlike a background check or temporary waiting period that eventually allows a transaction to proceed, there is no amount of time a purchaser can wait before federal law allows the prohibited direct interstate handgun transaction.

That difference is important to understanding the ruling. The Fifth Circuit did not invalidate background checks or conclude that every condition on a firearm purchase violates the Second Amendment. Instead, the majority treated the interstate restriction as a categorical prohibition on a particular form of otherwise lawful acquisition rather than simply a condition governing the transaction.

Interstate Handgun Restrictions Fail the Historical Test

Having concluded that the Second Amendment applied, the Fifth Circuit considered whether the government could establish a historical tradition supporting the restrictions.

The government presented colonial and founding-era regulations involving firearm exports, wartime restrictions, commerce with Native American tribes, gunpowder regulations, licensing, and firearm quality standards. The Fifth Circuit grouped those historical examples primarily into wartime and common-defense measures, regulation of commerce with foreign sovereigns, and early consumer-protection laws. The majority concluded that none provided an adequate historical analogue for a peacetime prohibition on direct handgun transactions between residents of different states.

The court was particularly skeptical of comparing commerce between separate colonies or Native American tribes with interstate commerce after the formation of the United States. According to the majority, the historical record lacked laws meaningfully restricting firearms commerce between states in a manner comparable to the modern federal restrictions.

The government therefore failed to satisfy its burden under Bruen, and the Fifth Circuit held the restrictions unconstitutional. Judge Catharina Haynes dissented, stating that she agreed with the district court that the challenged provisions were constitutional and would have affirmed its judgment.

Interstate Handgun Decision Creates a Circuit Split

The ruling becomes particularly significant because another federal appeals court reached the opposite conclusion.

In United States v. Vereen, the Second Circuit upheld the federal restrictions after concluding that historical laws regulating firearms moving between colonies and across borders provided adequate historical support. The Supreme Court declined to hear the Vereen case earlier this year, though a conflicting ruling from another circuit presents a different posture for any future petition.

The Fifth Circuit expressly rejected that reasoning, concluding that the Second Circuit examined the historical record at too high a level of generality. The majority said historical analogues must account more precisely for why a law existed and how it burdened the right.

The result is conflicting appellate interpretations of the same federal statutory scheme.

That does not guarantee U.S. Supreme Court review, and additional proceedings could occur within the Fifth Circuit first. But disagreement among federal appellate courts over an important federal constitutional question is one factor that can make eventual Supreme Court consideration more likely.

What the Ruling Means for Buyers Now

The decision does not immediately change how most out-of-state handgun purchases work. The government may seek rehearing before the full Fifth Circuit or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, and the ruling's practical reach depends on the scope of the court's judgment and when its mandate issues. As of September 21, ATF's public guidance continued to state that a licensed dealer generally may not deliver a firearm directly to an out-of-state resident, except in qualifying rifle and shotgun transactions. State firearms laws also still apply. Dealers and buyers should not assume the existing transfer process has ended.

Interstate Gun Sales Ruling Could Have Broader Policy Implications

The immediate dispute concerns interstate handgun purchases, but the Fifth Circuit's reasoning could become relevant to other firearm regulations involving mandatory intermediaries, additional costs, delays, or categorical restrictions. The majority specifically questioned the additional financial burden created by requiring an intermediary dealer, stating that courts should be cautious about costs attached to exercising a fundamental constitutional right.

At the same time, the decision preserves room for traditional commercial regulations such as background checks. The emerging legal question is therefore not simply whether government may regulate firearm transactions, but where regulation ends and a prohibition on constitutionally protected conduct begins.

The decision also highlights a federalism tension. The interstate restrictions were enacted partly to prevent residents from circumventing the gun laws of their home states. The district court viewed the restrictions as protecting those state regulatory systems. The Fifth Circuit instead focused on whether the federal government's chosen method of accomplishing that goal was compatible with the Second Amendment.

That distinction could matter if policymakers consider alternatives to the existing federal framework. A regulatory system designed to respect state eligibility requirements while allowing direct interstate transactions could present different constitutional questions than the categorical restriction the Fifth Circuit considered here.

Texas Firearms Cases Test Different Constitutional Limits

The ruling also adds to several recent firearms cases involving Texas and the Fifth Circuit, although those cases have turned on different constitutional questions.

The Fifth Circuit recently dismissed a challenge to Texas's handgun trespass notice requirements under Texas Penal Code 30.06 and 30.07. Texas Policy Research (TPR) previously examined that decision, which left the laws intact based on Article III standing rather than resolving the underlying First Amendment, Second Amendment, and private property questions.

A separate Northern District of Texas decision involving the National Firearms Act concluded that several NFA requirements could no longer be sustained under Congress's taxing power after Congress reduced the relevant taxes to zero. TPR previously analyzed that ruling as well. The court resolved that case under Congress's enumerated powers rather than deciding the plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims.

Elite Precision presents a different question because the Fifth Circuit reached the Second Amendment merits directly.

Taken together, the cases illustrate several distinct constitutional limits implicated by firearms policy: whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge a law, whether Congress possesses constitutional authority to enact it, and whether the regulation itself infringes the Second Amendment.

For Elite Precision, the next major question is whether the Fifth Circuit's ruling survives further review. With two federal appellate courts now disagreeing over the constitutionality of the same interstate firearm restrictions, the issue may ultimately require the U.S. Supreme Court to determine where federal regulation of interstate handgun sales ends and the Second Amendment begins.

---