Fifth Circuit Rules Federal Interstate Handgun Sales Ban is Unconstitutional

It’s never made sense at all that someone who is legally able to buy a handgun in their own state, say, Louisiana, is prohibited from buying and taking possession of one in Texas. They can pay for a handgun in another state, but under federal law, the Texas dealer has to ship the gun to an FFL in Louisiana before the buyer can take possession.

A fifth Circuit case — Elite Precision v. ATF — argued that state lines shouldn’t matter, just as they don’t in sales of rifles and shotguns. You fill out the same paperwork and pass the same background check, no matter where you are. Last night, a Fifth Circuit three-judge panel reversed a lower court decision, ruling 2 to 1 that the federal interstate handgun sales ban violates the Second Amendment.

Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought a permanent injunction against several provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922 that collectively prohibit the buying and selling of handguns across state lines. The only issue is whether those provisions are constitutional under the Second Amendment. They are not: 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. We reverse and render judgment for plaintiffs.

Strangely, the court decided that having the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to buy them. Crazy, no?

Oh, and we need to get this paragraph needlepointed on a pillow:

Even to the extent that the Ban can be circumvented by the licenseeto-licensee transfer workaround (which vests full veto power over interstate handgun sales in a group of third parties financially dependent on the government’s licensing regime), the Ban invariably calls for the payment of a fee over and above the cost of a handgun. We must pause before endorsing a cost attached to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. To the extent that prior decisions from this court hint there is an acceptable cost that may be imposed on the basic exercise of Second Amendment rights, they are abrogated by Bruen and its progeny.

Oooh…so good.

We’ll need to see what the DOJ’s approach to this is. Will they appeal? Or, as with the Silencer Shop/Jensen ruling, will they let it stand? Also, this Fifth Circuit banger conflicts with a similar ruling from the Second Circuit, setting up another juicy circuit court split that will be ripe for SCOTUS scrutiny. Don’t touch that dial.