A divided federal appeals court ruled that longstanding restrictions preventing buyers from directly purchasing handguns from licensed dealers in other states violate the Second Amendment because the government failed to identify a sufficiently comparable historical firearms restriction.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
A federal appeals court struck down federal restrictions on direct interstate handgun purchases Friday, ruling 2-1 that provisions dating to the Gun Control Act era violate the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s history-and-tradition standard.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a Texas federal judge’s dismissal of the case and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF. The challenged provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922 collectively prevent otherwise eligible buyers from directly obtaining handguns from federally licensed dealers outside their state of residence.
“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,” Circuit Judge Jerry Smith wrote for the majority.
Federal law treats some interstate purchases of rifles and shotguns differently. Buyers may obtain those firearms directly from out-of-state licensed dealers under specified conditions, including compliance with the laws governing the transaction in both states. Direct interstate handgun sales, however, have generally required the firearm to first be transferred to a federally licensed dealer in the buyer’s home state before the buyer can take possession.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that the additional dealer-transfer option did not save the handgun restrictions from constitutional scrutiny.
Smith wrote that the Second Amendment’s protection of keeping and bearing arms necessarily encompasses the ability to acquire them. Because the laws categorically prevent one class of otherwise lawful handgun purchases, the majority concluded that the regulations implicate conduct covered by the amendment’s text.
That finding required the federal government to demonstrate that the restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation under the framework established by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022.
Under Bruen, once conduct falls within the Second Amendment’s text, the government carries the burden of identifying a historical tradition sufficiently analogous to the modern restriction.
The federal government pointed to numerous colonial and early American laws involving the movement, sale and export of firearms and ammunition. Those included restrictions on sending weapons outside particular colonies, controls on firearm commerce with Native American tribes and laws regulating weapons during periods of war.
The Fifth Circuit majority found those examples insufficient.
Smith wrote that the lower court’s treatment of the historical evidence “stretches the historical record far beyond what it can actually bear.”
The majority grouped the government’s historical examples primarily into laws involving common defense during wartime, trade with foreign sovereigns or Native American tribes, and consumer-protection regulations governing the quality and safety of firearms and gunpowder.
According to the court, none provided a sufficiently close historical analogue for a peacetime federal prohibition preventing otherwise lawful handgun transactions between residents and licensed dealers in different states.
The majority said the government’s historical argument depended on viewing early cross-border firearm restrictions too broadly while overlooking important differences between commerce among states in the United States and earlier colonial restrictions involving separate jurisdictions or foreign sovereigns.
“Founding-era laws regulating the sale of arms and ammunition are inapposite to modern-day prohibitions of interstate handgun sales and transfers,” Smith wrote.
The court also rejected the argument that the requirement represented only a limited commercial restriction because buyers remain able to obtain the same handgun by arranging a transfer through a licensed dealer in their home state.
The plaintiffs argued that the process can require finding a second dealer willing to participate, paying an additional transfer fee and waiting longer to receive the firearm.
One plaintiff, Tim Herron, told the court that intermediary dealers involved in previous transactions had typically charged him between $30 and $40 and delayed his possession of the handgun. The majority said requiring a person to pay an additional fee to exercise a constitutional right presented constitutional concerns.
Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes dissented and said she would have upheld the district court’s ruling.
“I agree with the district court’s decision that the several provisions of [the gun control act] discussed in this case are not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” Haynes wrote. “That is all that is in play in this case.”
The lawsuit was filed in January 2025 by Elite Precision Customs LLC, a Texas custom firearms dealer, along with prospective out-of-state customers Herron and Freddie Blish and the Firearms Policy Coalition.
Herron is a New Mexico resident and grand master in the U.S. Practical Shooting Association. Blish is a retired U.S. Marine Corps veteran who travels around the country teaching firearms handling for self-defense.
Elite Precision told the court it wanted to sell handguns directly to otherwise eligible customers residing outside Texas but was prevented from doing so by federal law. Herron and Blish said they wanted to purchase handguns directly from the company without routing the transactions through additional federally licensed dealers in their home states.
The Firearms Policy Coalition welcomed the ruling.
“This is a massive victory for the People and another major defeat for the federal government’s unconstitutional gun-control regime,” coalition President Brandon Combs said. “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 case had previously gone the opposite direction in federal district court.
On Sept. 30, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the federal government’s motion to dismiss. The lower court concluded that the interstate sales provisions did not amount to a prohibition on possessing handguns and instead operated as commercial regulations governing how firearms could be acquired.
Congress enacted the restrictions during the late 1960s after concluding that interstate firearm commerce allowed purchasers to circumvent firearms laws in their states of residence.
The Fifth Circuit majority acknowledged that public safety was Congress’ stated objective but concluded that the modern constitutional analysis required more than identifying a legitimate purpose for the restriction.
Under Bruen, the court said, the government had to establish that the manner in which the law burdens Second Amendment rights was consistent with the principles reflected in historical firearms regulation.
The majority determined the government did not meet that burden.
The court consequently reversed the district court’s dismissal and rendered judgment for Elite Precision Customs, Herron, Blish and the Firearms Policy Coalition, finding the federal provisions unconstitutional as applied to the direct interstate handgun transactions challenged in the case.
Original article
Comments