Elite Precision v. ATF, 25-11206 (5th Cir. 2026)

From a description of the decision by the US Court of Appeals:

Quote:

---

Several plaintiffs, including a federally licensed firearm dealer in Texas and two law-abiding residents of Arizona and New Mexico, challenged federal statutes that prohibit the direct sale and transfer of handguns across state lines. The statutes in question, collectively called the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban, make it unlawful for unlicensed persons to buy or sell handguns to residents of other states and restrict licensed dealers from directly selling handguns to nonresidents, subject to limited exceptions. While a workaround existsrequiring transfers through an intermediary licensed dealer in the buyer's home statethis process is not automatic, incurs additional fees, and results in delays. The plaintiffs argued that, but for the Ban, they would engage in interstate handgun sales and purchases.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas reviewed the case. The government moved to dismiss, and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. With no disputed facts, the court determined the issue was purely a question of law: whether the Ban violates the Second Amendment. The district court upheld the Ban, granting the government's motion and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs appealed the decision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. Applying the framework from N.Y. State Pistol & Rifle Ass'n v. Bruen, the court found that the Ban implicates conduct covered by the Second Amendment's plain text and is therefore presumptively unconstitutional. The government failed to identify a sufficient historical tradition to justify the Ban. The Fifth Circuit held that the Ban is inconsistent with the nation's tradition of firearms regulation under the Second Amendment, reversed the district court's dismissal, and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs.

---

From the decision itself:

Quote:

---

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.

---

The entire decision is available at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/25-11206/25-11206-2026-09-18.html

The filing date for the decision is September 18, 2026.

I assume that this will be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Does anyone know if we are now able to buy firearms across state lines without the need of a local firearms dealer being involved since last Friday? Does this take immediate action or will there be some kind of delay?

The decision will almost certainly be appealed, and the former interpretation of the law will apply (barring an injunction) until appeals are exhausted. Even so, the decision will only apply within the territory of the 5th Circuit, unless or until the Supreme Court affirms, making it applicable to the entire country. Until the issue is finally settled, it's safe to assume FFL is still required.

TXianLawfia said:

---

The decision will almost certainly be appealed, and the former interpretation of the law will apply (barring an injunction) until appeals are exhausted. Even so, the decision will only apply within the territory of the 5th Circuit, unless or until the Supreme Court affirms, making it applicable to the entire country. Until the issue is finally settled, it's safe to assume FFL is still required.

---

If it stands but only within the 5th circuit, how does that work?

Looking at the map, it looks like Texas, Louisiana, and MIssissippi are covered by the 5th circuit. If it stands but only within the 5th circuit, does that mean that both the buyer and the seller would have to be in these three states?

Looked at the opinion to see if there was a dissent and potentially, a basis for an en banc (total 5th circuit court) hearing. What I found astounded me:

Quote:

---

I respect the majority opinion, but I respectfully dissent. I agree with the district court's decision that the several provisions of 18 U.S.C. 922 discussed in this case are not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. That is all that is in play in this case, thus, I would affirm.

---

Say what? That is, probably by far, the weakest dissent I think I've EVER read -- and I've read 10s of thousands of cases. Seriously -- a law clerk couldn't fill in ANY specifics?

I now don't think the 5th circuit will waste their time. However, if there is a split of authority among circuits, the USSC will take it up. But it may not be right now if there are no recent/current decisions.

As far as what states this applies to, I'm thinking it will apply to the US Attorneys in Texas, Louisiana and Miss. Not necessarily firearms transactions specifically in those states. Anyone else have a different opinion?

This dissent is someone who is philosophically inclined, yet intellectually lazy.



We have a legal system not a justice system - even in this aspect of law.