Fifth Circuit urged to shoot down restriction on interstate handgun purchases

They argue a federal law requiring handgun purchasers to route out-of-state purchases through a dealer in their home state does not fit with the nation's "history and tradition" of firearm regulation.(CN) — Gun rights advocates asked a Fifth Circuit panel Wednesday to axe federal restrictions on handgun purchases across state lines, which they say violate the Second Amendment.The federal statutes at issue, enacted in 1968, make it illegal to directly purchase a handgun outside of one’s state of residence. Instead, an individual must route the purchase through a firearms dealer in their home state, which can cost more.Attorney Pete Patterson, representing the plaintiffs challenging the statutes — the Firearms Policy Coalition, a firearms dealer and two individuals who wish to purchase handguns directly while out of state — told a three-judge panel this restriction is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment test the U.S. Supreme Court established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. Under Bruen, the government is required to show gun restrictions fit with the nation’s “history and tradition” of firearm regulation by identifying historical examples of comparable restrictions.Patterson said the historical laws the government compares to the restrictions at issue don’t meet this requirement.“The government has not cited a single law from the founding of this nation through the conclusion of the 19th century that barred a nonresident from acquiring a firearm outside of his or her state of residence,” he said.Asked by U.S. Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes about what harm the government would suffer if the statutes were invalidated, Justice Department attorney Laura Myron said the purpose of the statutory regime is to prevent people from purchasing handguns out of state to avoid firearm regulations in their home state.“In 1938, Congress enacted provisions that required people to purchase from federal licensees, but did not have the same residency restrictions as the 1968 law, and found that as a result of that statute, people were crossing state lines to purchase firearms in ways that they would not have been permitted to do within their own jurisdiction. And so they enacted the 1968 law in order to prevent people from evading state and local regulations on the commercial sale of firearms,” Myron said.In 2025, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee in the Northern District of Texas, rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge, finding no need to perform a historical analysis under Bruen. Instead, he found the challenged restriction does not fall under the “plain text” of the Second Amendment, as it is not a ban on the possession of firearms. Rather, he found the statutes serve as commercial regulations on the sale of firearms, which the Supreme Court has said are presumptively lawful.Patterson argued this regulation is indeed a ban on possession, however, as it “flatly prohibits a law-abiding citizen from taking possession of a handgun outside of his or her state of residence.”“In the First Amendment context, it would be not proper to assume that a ban on, say, acquiring a book directly from a bookstore outside of a person’s state of residence would not even present a First Amendment case,” he said.But Myron pointed to a Fifth Circuit precedent that upheld the statutes at issue. While that decision applied a test that was superseded by Bruen, the court recognized the restrictions impose only “de mininis” burdens on people’s ability to purchase a handgun out of state, she said, causing only a “modest delay” and possibly a small increase in cost.“The provisions at issue here don’t ban any type of sale of firearm or any type of firearm,” Myron said. “They do not prohibit an out-of-state purchaser from making a purchase out of state. They simply require that the purchaser route the sale through a licensee in his or her home state.”U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, a Ronald Reagan appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt, a Donald Trump appointee, joined Haynes, a George W. Bush appointee, on the panel.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads