Fort Worth, Texas — A federal appeals court panel in New Orleans has struck down a decades-old federal statute prohibiting consumers from purchasing handguns directly outside their home states. In a 2-1 decision arising from a legal challenge initiated by a North Texas firearms retailer, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declared that federal restrictions barring licensed dealers from transferring handguns to non-resident customers infringe upon constitutional protections under the Second Amendment.
The dispute centers on provisions within the Gun Control Act of 1968, codified under federal law within Title 18, which permitted direct in-person transactions for shotguns and rifles across state lines while excluding handguns. Under the statutory structure, an individual seeking a handgun outside their home state was obligated to have the weapon shipped directly to an in-state licensed merchant, incurring mandatory shipping charges and dealer transfer fees. The legal action was brought by Elite Precision Customs LLC, a commercial firearms manufacturer and retailer situated in Mansfield, Texas, alongside individual plaintiffs including a competitive sports shooter and former military personnel.
Writing for the panel majority, Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, joined by Circuit Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt, determined that the purchase of firearms is inextricably linked to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Applying the historical scrutiny framework established by the United States Supreme Court in its 2022 landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court concluded that early American firearms regulations—such as colonial gunpowder safety mandates and wartime equipment restrictions—did not provide an adequate historical foundation for a blanket peacetime ban on commercial interstate transactions.
"We must pause before endorsing a cost attached to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right." — Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for the Fifth Circuit majority
In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes maintained that the challenged statutory rules constituted reasonable commercial conditions on sales rather than unconstitutional prohibitions on individual ownership.
"The provisions at issue are not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment." — Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes, dissenting from the panel opinion
