The Fifth Circuit Just Struck the Federal Ban on Buying a Handgun Across State Lines
On September 18, Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote for a Fifth Circuit panel in Elite Precision Customs L.L.C. v. ATF, No. 25-11206. The court reversed the Northern District of Texas and rendered judgment for a Texas FFL, two out-of-state buyers, and Firearms Policy Coalition. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), (a)(5), and (b)(3) — the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban — fail Bruen. Rifles and shotguns already had an in-person interstate carve-out. Handguns did not.
- Opinion filed Sept. 18, 2026: Elite Precision Customs L.L.C. v. ATF, 5th Cir. No. 25-11206. Panel: Smith, Haynes, Engelhardt. Author: Jerry E. Smith.
- Reversed N.D. Tex. 4:25-CV-44 and rendered judgment for Elite Precision, Tim Herron, Freddie Blish, and FPC.
- Struck as the “Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban”: 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), (a)(5), (b)(3). Long-gun in-person interstate sales already had a statutory carve-out.
- FFL-to-FFL transfer is not a saving construction. Record: Herron paid $30–40 and waited. Court: no wait converts a banned purchase into a lawful one.
- Circuit split with the Second Circuit on the same federal ban. Not a universal injunction. Government may still seek further review.
The Fifth Circuit filed the opinion September 18, 2026, in No. 25-11206. The panel is Circuit Judges Smith, Haynes, and Engelhardt. Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote it. Plaintiffs: Elite Precision Customs L.L.C., a Texas FFL; Tim Herron of New Mexico; Freddie Blish of Arizona; and Firearms Policy Coalition. Defendants named on the caption: ATF, Attorney General Todd Wallace Blanche, and Acting ATF Director Daniel Driscoll. The appeal is from N.D. Tex. No. 4:25-CV-44, where the district court had dismissed the case.
Smith’s first page is the whole holding. The challenged pieces of 18 U.S.C. § 922 “collectively prohibit the buying and selling of handguns across state lines.” 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.” The court reversed and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs. Section 922(b)(3) already lets a dealer sell a rifle or shotgun in person to an out-of-state resident if both states’ laws are met. The handgun rule has no such door. The FFL-to-FFL workaround, Smith wrote, is not automatic, vests a veto in another licensee, “typically charge[s] a substantial fee,” and is not instantaneous. Herron’s declaration in the record: $30–40 and delay.
The court relied on its own Reese v. ATF, 127 F.4th 583 (5th Cir. 2025) — the right to keep arms “surely implies the right to purchase them” — and on Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032 (2026). It rejected McRorey, the ten-business-day wait case, because “there is no amount of time an individual can wait” to make a direct interstate handgun purchase: “such purchases are flatly illegal.” FPC’s Brandon Combs, in the organization’s September 18 release, called it a purchase ban the government failed to justify. The opinion creates a split with the Second Circuit on the same federal scheme. It is not a nationwide injunction. Trump v. CASA still sits on who is covered. The government has a clock to seek further review. Until then, the Fifth Circuit’s judgment is that the Ban does not survive Bruen.
"There is no amount of time you can wait. Direct interstate handgun sales are flatly illegal — and the Fifth Circuit just held that ban unconstitutional."← More Stories
Comments
Share your take. Name is public; state is optional. Be civil — spam is removed.
Loading comments…