Fifth Circuit: Interstate Handgun Purchase Restriction Challenged

• Gun rights advocates are challenging a 1968 federal law that requires out-of-state handgun purchases to be routed through a dealer in the buyer's home state.
• Plaintiffs argue this Fifth Circuit interstate handgun purchase restriction violates the Second Amendment under the *Bruen* "history and tradition" test.
• The Justice Department defends the law, stating its purpose is to prevent evasion of state firearm regulations.
• A district court previously rejected the challenge, finding the law to be a commercial regulation rather than a ban on possession.
• The outcome of this federal handgun residency law challenge could significantly alter regulations for interstate firearm sales.

Legal professionals advising firearms businesses or individuals on gun ownership should closely monitor this Fifth Circuit interstate handgun purchase restriction case, as its outcome could significantly alter federal regulations regarding interstate handgun purchases, impacting compliance requirements for dealers and legal advice for purchasers across state lines.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a significant federal handgun residency law challenge. Gun rights advocates are seeking to overturn federal restrictions that mandate out-of-state handgun purchases be routed through a licensed firearms dealer in the buyer's home state. This federal law, enacted in 1968, effectively prohibits individuals from directly acquiring a handgun outside their state of residence, often leading to increased costs for purchasers.

The lawsuit, spearheaded by the Firearms Policy Coalition, along with a firearms dealer and two individuals, contends that this Fifth Circuit interstate handgun purchase restriction violates the Second Amendment. Attorney Pete Patterson, representing the plaintiffs, argued before the panel that the federal statutes at issue, part of the 1968 Gun Control Act challenge, are unconstitutional. The outcome of this case could significantly reshape the legality of interstate firearm sales.

Central to the plaintiffs' argument is the Second Amendment Bruen test firearms standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court. This precedent requires the government to demonstrate that any firearm regulation aligns with the nation's "history and tradition" of gun control by presenting comparable historical examples. Patterson asserted that the government has failed to meet this burden, noting a complete absence of laws from the nation's founding through the end of the 19th century that prevented non-residents from acquiring firearms across state lines.

Justice Department attorney Laura Myron, responding to a query from U.S. Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes regarding potential harm from invalidating the statutes, defended the existing framework. Myron explained that the 1968 law was specifically designed to prevent individuals from circumventing their home state's firearm regulations by purchasing handguns out of state. She highlighted that earlier 1938 provisions, which required purchases from federal licensees but lacked residency restrictions, led to people crossing state lines to buy firearms they could not legally obtain in their own jurisdictions, necessitating the 1968 legislative response to curb such evasion in commercial firearm sales.

The current appeal follows a 2025 decision by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee in the Northern District of Texas, who rejected the plaintiffs' initial challenge. Judge Pittman concluded that a historical analysis under the *Bruen* standard was unnecessary. Instead, he determined that the challenged restriction does not fall within the "plain text" of the Second Amendment because it does not constitute a ban on firearm possession. He characterized the statutes as commercial regulations on firearm sales, which the Supreme Court has generally deemed presumptively lawful.

Patterson, however, countered this interpretation, arguing that the regulation effectively acts as a ban on possession because it "flatly prohibits a law-abiding citizen from taking possession of a handgun outside of his or her state of residence." He drew an analogy to First Amendment rights, suggesting that a ban on directly acquiring a book from an out-of-state bookstore would undeniably present a First Amendment case. Myron, for her part, cited a prior Fifth Circuit precedent that upheld the statutes, acknowledging that while its underlying test was superseded by *Bruen*, that ruling characterized the burdens imposed as "de minimis," involving only a "modest delay" and a potentially small increase in cost.

This ongoing federal handgun residency law challenge before the Fifth Circuit carries substantial implications for both individual gun owners and the firearms industry. The court's decision will clarify the scope of the Second Amendment Bruen test firearms analysis as applied to commercial regulations and interstate firearm sales legality. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could dismantle a long-standing federal restriction, potentially simplifying out-of-state handgun acquisitions.

Conversely, upholding the 1968 Gun Control Act challenge would reinforce the government's ability to regulate interstate firearm sales to prevent regulatory arbitrage. Legal professionals advising firearms businesses or individuals on gun ownership should closely monitor this Fifth Circuit interstate handgun purchase restriction case, as its outcome could significantly alter federal regulations regarding interstate handgun purchases, impacting compliance requirements for dealers and legal advice for purchasers across state lines.

Lawyers advising firearms businesses or individuals on gun ownership should closely monitor this Fifth Circuit case, as its outcome could significantly alter federal regulations regarding interstate handgun purchases, impacting compliance requirements for dealers and legal advice for purchasers across state lines.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service