Elite Precision & FPC v. ATF. Challenge to out of state handgun purchases.

[THE KING]

 

Edited July 16, 2025 at 10:34 PM by THE KING

[THE KING]

This is all the information I have at this time.  If anyone has more information please add to this topic. 

 

KING 

[THE KING]

2025.01.20_001_Complaint (1).pdf

[Euler]

On January 20, 2025, the case was filed in Texas federal district court. The complaint challenges the provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits FFLs from selling handguns to non-residents of the state in which they do business [18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), "non-resident handgun purchase ban"] without shipping the handguns to an FFL in the purchaser's home state. (docket)

On June 9, after several extensions to respond, the ATF filed a motion to dismiss.

On July 14, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment.

Edited July 16, 2025 at 11:26 PM by Euler

[Euler]

On September 30, 2025, the district court dismissed the case, finding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3) and § 922(b)(5) are constitutional, because the interstate commerce ban did not implicate the 2nd Amendment's plain text at step 1 of the Bruen analysis.

On October 28, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

On October 30, the 5th Circuit docketed the appeal.

On September 2, 2026, the court heard oral arguments.

On September 18 (yeah, about two weeks later), the court not only reversed the dismissal, but ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3) and § 922(b)(5) are unconstitutional when used to ban the sale or purchase of handguns across state borders. In part:

CA5 opinion said:

...
Hemani barred the use of founding-era laws disarming "habitual drunkards" to support the use of a modern statute to disarm a present-day marihuana smoker, on the ground that the historical analogues "targeted different kinds of people, did so for different purposes, and operated in different ways" from how the modern regulation functions. ... Applying that lesson here, the finer points of the historical record cannot be glossed over, such that merely observing the general capacity of colonial governments to regulate the firearms trade is inadequate to justify the Ban under the Second Amendment. A more nuanced approach at a lower level of generality is required, and, under that standard, founding-era laws regulating the sale of arms and ammunition are inapposite to modern-day prohibitions of interstate handgun sales and transfers.
...
The Ban sullies the plain text of the Second Amendment ...
...

I like how the court used "more nuanced approach" (a phrase from Rahimi to weaken Bruen) in this case to strengthen Bruen.

Edited September 20, 2026 at 05:28 AM by Euler