NEW ORLEANS — Since 1968, it has been illegal to directly purchase a handgun in a state other than the one in which you reside, even if you can pass a federal background check, a situation that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just decided is unconstitutional.
On September 18, a three-judge panel issued a 17-page decision in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF, a case on appeal from the district court in Texas. The 2-1 decision was authored by Judge Jerry E. Smith, joined by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt, with Judge Catharina Haynes dissenting.
“This is a massive victory for the People and another major defeat for the federal government’s unconstitutional gun-control regime. Your right to keep and bear arms does not stop at your state line, and the government cannot make you pay a penalty just to exercise it. The Fifth Circuit got it exactly right: this is a purchase ban; it is presumptively unconstitutional, and the government failed to justify it. We told the federal government we were coming for this ban, and today we beat them,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in a press statement.
The court looked at the challenged statutes in 18 U.S.C. Section 922, which collectively prohibits the buying and selling of handguns across state lines, and decided they are unconstitutional, writing, “Under Bruen, they implicate the Second Amendment’s plain text, making them presumptively unconstitutional, and the government has failed to meet its burden to justify the provisions as consistent with the nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
Indeed, a common-sense holding by most citizens is that constitutionally protected liberties do not stop at state lines, yet the district court previously held in 2025, “…the Sale Restrictions do not function as a de facto prohibition on possession but rather a reasonable commercial restriction enacted by Congress.”
This panel’s decision corrects that finding by noting “there is no such thing as ‘a purchase ban unknown at the time of the founding that can evade Bruen analysis,'” and goes on to add, “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, under that Amendment.”
The Fifth Circuit’s finding is particularly significant because the ball is now in the court of the defendant, the federal government, which has the option to accept the court’s ruling or to appeal. The Bondi DOJ filed a motion to dismiss the case, granted by a federal judge in September of 2025.
Under Attorney General Blanche, and with significant influence from President Trump (see related story from this week), the current DOJ has elected not to contest some Second Amendment victories in favor of gun owners, an outcome that the Second Amendment community also hopes for in this case.
The original complaint was filed shortly after President Trump took office, on January 20, 2025, in Texas district court. The Fifth Circuit panel reversed and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, rather than sending the case back to the district court, which itself is an overwhelmingly positive outcome that shortens the duration of legal proceedings.
The federal government has until November 2, 2026, to seek a panel rehearing or en banc rehearing.
