Fifth Circuit Holds the Federal Ban on Out-of-State Handgun Purchases Unconstitutional: What the September 18 Ruling Means in Texas

What Changed, and When

On September 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided Elite Precision Customs L.L.C. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, No. 25-11206. The opinion was written by Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith and joined by Circuit Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt. Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes dissented, writing that she agreed with the district court that the provisions at issue “are not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.”

The provisions are two pieces of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Section 922(a)(3) of Title 18 generally bars an unlicensed person from receiving in their home state a firearm acquired outside it, and Section 922(b)(3) generally bars a federally licensed dealer from delivering a firearm directly to someone who is not a resident of the dealer’s state. Congress wrote an exception for rifles and shotguns, so a Texan has long been able to buy a long gun over the counter in Oklahoma. Handguns were left out of that exception, which is why a handgun bought out of state has had to be shipped to a licensed dealer in the buyer’s home state and released there, usually for an added transfer fee.

The panel held that arrangement unconstitutional. As the opinion puts it, “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 court reasoned that the right to keep arms necessarily includes the right to purchase them, so a categorical prohibition on an entire class of otherwise lawful purchases is covered by the Amendment’s text rather than being a mere commercial condition. It then found the government’s historical comparisons — laws about wartime arms restrictions, trade with Native American tribes, gunpowder inspection and early consumer protection — too different in kind to justify a peacetime ban on interstate handgun sales.

The court also addressed the dealer-to-dealer workaround directly, writing that the ban “invariably calls for the payment of a fee over and above the cost of a handgun” and that “[w]e must pause before endorsing a cost attached to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right.” On that point the opinion states that earlier Fifth Circuit decisions suggesting some acceptable cost may be imposed “are abrogated by Bruen and its progeny” — a reference to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which replaced interest-balancing with a test based on historical tradition. That includes the Fifth Circuit’s own 2018 decision in Mance v. Sessions, which had upheld the same scheme before Bruen was decided.

Procedurally, the case began in January 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, No. 4:25-cv-44. That court granted the government’s motion to dismiss on September 30, 2025, describing the restrictions as a reasonable commercial regulation rather than a prohibition on possession. The Fifth Circuit reversed that dismissal and, rather than sending the case back for further proceedings, rendered judgment for the plaintiffs.

Who in Texas This Reaches

Three groups have a direct interest in the outcome.

• Federally licensed dealers in Texas. The lead plaintiff, Elite Precision Customs LLC, is a custom firearms business in Mansfield. Every Texas dealer that has turned away out-of-state customers at the counter, or routed them through a transfer, is affected by how the licensing agency and the courts apply this ruling.
• Texans who buy handguns outside Texas, and out-of-state visitors who buy here. The individual plaintiffs are a competitive shooter based in New Mexico and a retired Marine who travels the country teaching firearms handling — people whose purchases cross state lines as a matter of routine.
• Anyone facing questions about a past or planned transaction. Sections 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3) are criminal provisions. A person under investigation, or a licensee facing a compliance action, has a reason to know exactly how a ruling issued this week bears on conduct that happened before it, or on conduct being planned now.

The Fifth Circuit’s decisions bind the federal district courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. They do not control courts in other circuits, and they do not displace state law.

What This Changes Legally

A panel decision is not the end of a case. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a court of appeals judgment takes effect when the mandate issues, and the losing side may ask the full court to rehear the case or ask the Supreme Court to review it. As of the date on this page we have not located a public filing by the government stating what it intends to do. What that means practically is that the legal position today may not be the legal position in a month, in either direction.

There is now a split between federal appeals courts. The opinion states plainly, “We reject the Second Circuit’s approach,” referring to that court’s contrary decision upholding the same federal provisions, and says the Second Circuit’s analysis stretched the historical record “far beyond what it can actually bear.” A disagreement between circuits on the same federal statute is one of the standard reasons the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case. It also means the rule in Texas and the rule in New York are, at this moment, described differently by the courts that govern each.

Federal background-check requirements were not the question in this case. The provisions at issue concern who may take delivery of a handgun and where. The separate federal requirements that a licensed dealer run a background check and complete a Form 4473 were not what the plaintiffs challenged, and nothing in the coverage of this ruling suggests those requirements were disturbed.

State law still applies on both ends of a sale. Federal law is one layer. The law of the state where a purchase happens and the law of the buyer’s home state operate on their own terms, and they differ considerably from state to state. A transaction that federal law no longer forbids can still run into a state requirement.

Federal agencies do not always change practice the day an opinion issues. Licensing guidance, forms and enforcement policy are updated through their own processes. A dealer deciding what to do at the counter tomorrow is making a judgment about an unsettled situation, which is exactly the kind of judgment attorneys are trained to walk through.

What Kind of Option Might Apply

Nothing on this page is legal advice, a prediction about the case, or a statement that any particular transaction is or is not permitted. What a Texas attorney who handles firearms law can review, on the actual facts, includes:

• What a licensed dealer should do at the counter right now given that the mandate, any rehearing petition and any change in agency guidance are all still open questions.
• How this ruling bears on a pending investigation or charge under Section 922(a)(3) or Section 922(b)(3), including conduct that predates the opinion.
• How a compliance inspection or a license revocation proceeding should be handled while the law in this circuit is in motion.
• Which state’s requirements govern a particular purchase, and what each state asks of the buyer and the seller regardless of the federal question.
• Whether a past transfer fee or a refused sale gives rise to any claim, and what the realistic answer to that is.
• How to follow the docket so that a decision made next month reflects the law in force on the day it is made.

Why Acting Quickly Can Matter

The dates on the record are these. The lawsuit was filed in January 2025. The district court dismissed it on September 30, 2025. The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs on September 18, 2026. Under the appellate rules, the time for the government to seek rehearing runs from the date of the judgment, and the mandate follows after that period, so the weeks ahead are when the practical effect of this ruling will be settled. Separately, anyone who is under investigation or has been charged is working against deadlines of their own — response dates, court settings and, in a criminal matter, the point at which decisions become much harder to revisit. It is best to talk to a lawyer before making a decision that depends on how a new ruling is going to be applied, rather than after.

Sources

1. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, opinion in Elite Precision Customs L.L.C. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, No. 25-11206, decided September 18, 2026 (primary document; appeal from N.D. Tex. No. 4:25-CV-44).
2. Eugene Volokh, “Restriction on Handgun Sales to Out-of-State Residents Violates Second Amendment, Fifth Circuit Holds,” The Volokh Conspiracy at Reason, September 18, 2026 (quotes the opinion at length and links the PDF).
3. Jill McLaughlin, “Appeals Court Rules Federal Ban on Interstate Handgun Sales Unconstitutional,” The Epoch Times, September 18, 2026, updated September 19, 2026.
4. Scott McClallen, “Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Federal Ban on Interstate Handgun Purchases,” Townhall, September 18, 2026.
5. Firearms Policy Coalition, press release on the decision, September 18, 2026 (a party to the case; its characterizations are reported as its own).
6. Fifth Circuit, Mance v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 2018) (the 2018 decision addressed in the opinion).
7. U.S. Supreme Court, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (the historical-tradition standard the panel applied).