FEDERAL APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN BAN ON INTERSTATE HANDGUN SALES
On September 18, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant Second Amendment decision in Elite Precision Customs L.L.C. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, holding that the federal laws prohibiting a federal firearm licensee (“FFL”) from directly transferring handguns to residents of other states violate the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
Federal law prohibits an FFL from transferring a handgun directly to someone without an FFL who is not a resident of the state in which its licensed premises is located. Instead, those persons seeking to purchase a handgun from an FFL in another state they are visiting are required to have that FFL ship the firearm to an FFL in their state of residence. They are then required to go to that FFL and complete the federally required Form 4473 and successfully pass a background check before they can take possession of the handgun they purchased from the FFL in another state. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), and 922(b)(3). This typically involves a processing fee on top of the original price paid to the out-of-state dealer, in addition to shipping charges and delay. The Fifth Circuit referred to these provisions as the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban (“Ban”).
Applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Fifth Circuit first concluded that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to “keep” arms necessarily encompasses the right to purchase them. Because the challenged statutes categorically prohibit an entire class of otherwise lawful handgun purchases, the court held that they implicate the Second Amendment’s plain text and are presumptively unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument that the Ban imposes only a minor burden because other methods of purchasing handguns across state lines remain available, concluding that the Ban is “fully subject to the Second Amendment.” According to the court, the availability of an additional transfer process does not change the fact that direct interstate handgun sales are prohibited and may impose additional fees and delays on the exercise of a Constitutional right.
Having found that the Ban implicates the Second Amendment, the burden shifted to the government to demonstrate that it was consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The government relied on numerous colonial and founding era laws regulating the sale, transfer, or export of firearms and gunpowder. The Fifth Circuit concluded that those laws were not sufficiently analogous because they generally involved wartime measures, commerce with foreign sovereigns or Indian tribes, or consumer protection requirements. The court held that none of the government’s proposed analogues established a historical tradition of prohibiting ordinary handgun purchases by law abiding citizens while in another state.
The decision creates a direct conflict with the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Vereen, 152 F.4th 89, 100 (2d Cir. 2025), which upheld the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban based on its assessment of historical laws regulating interstate movement of firearms and gunpowder. The Fifth Circuit expressly rejected the Second Circuit’s conclusion, stating that its “questionable analysis stretches the historical record far beyond what it can actually bear” by reading the historical regulations too generally. The circuit split between the Fifth and Second Circuits on this issue increases the potential for the issue to be heard by the Supreme Court, which would settle the issue nationwide.
In other related news, on the same day Elite Precision was decided, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued an opinion that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), which generally prohibit FFLs from transferring handguns and handgun ammunition to persons less than twenty-one years old, cannot be constitutionally enforced to bring criminal charges against FFLs transferring handguns and handgun ammunition to otherwise law-abiding persons between the ages of eighteen and twenty years old. That decision is based on the conclusion that persons between the ages of eighteen and twenty are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, the federal restrictions burden their ability to acquire commonly used firearms, and there is no historical tradition of preventing legal adults from purchasing firearms. This announcement further reflects the rapid developments in firearm regulation since the Bruen decision.
Renzulli Law Firm, LLP will continue to monitor firearm legislation and developing firearm‑related news around the country. If you have any questions concerning the effect of the decision in the Elite Precision case or the DOJ’s opinion on the operation of your business, please contact Christopher Renzulli.