Last updated: October 12, 2026. I'll keep updating this article as the case moves.
Big news for anyone who sells handguns, or is thinking about getting an FFL to do it. On September 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in Elite Precision Customs, L.L.C. v. ATF, No. 25-11206, that the federal laws banning direct interstate handgun sales violate the Second Amendment. You can read the full opinion here.
Before anyone gets too excited: this ruling is not in effect, and you should not change how you transfer handguns. Here's what the court actually decided, why it doesn't change anything at your counter yet, and what to watch for next.
The Quick Summary
- What the court held: 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), (a)(5), and (b)(3), which together ban direct interstate handgun sales, are unconstitutional under Bruen.
- The vote: 2-1. Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Kurt Engelhardt. Judge Catharina Haynes dissented.
- Is it in effect? No. The court's docket lists the mandate date as November 9, 2026, and the ruling has no effect before the mandate issues. Further review could push that back.
- Who it covers: Unsettled. It may cover only the parties to the case (and possibly FPC's members).
- What you should do: Nothing different. Under current federal law, an FFL can still only sell or deliver a handgun to a resident of the state where the FFL's business is located.
The Law the Court Struck Down
Since the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law has blocked direct handgun sales across state lines. The court looked at three provisions together and called them the "Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban":
- § 922(a)(3) bars non-licensees from bringing into or receiving in their home state a firearm they got outside that state.
- § 922(a)(5) bars non-licensees from transferring a firearm to another non-licensee who lives in a different state.
- § 922(b)(3) bars FFLs from selling or delivering a firearm to someone who doesn't live in the state where the FFL's business is located. The exceptions are in-person rifle and shotgun sales that comply with the laws of both states, and temporary loans or rentals for lawful sporting purposes.
That's why, today, someone who buys a handgun from a dealer in another state has to have it shipped to an FFL in their home state, which does the paperwork and the background check before handing it over. (I cover how that works in my guide to FFL transfers.) The court pointed out that no dealer has to agree to be the receiving FFL, that they typically charge a fee, and that the process adds a delay.
ATF has a regulation that mirrors the ban, 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a). The court said the regulation "offers nothing of substance that is not covered by the Ban," so it didn't address it separately.
Who Brought the Case
- Elite Precision Customs, L.L.C., a federally licensed manufacturer and dealer in Texas that says it would sell handguns directly to out-of-state residents if the law allowed it.
- Freddie Blish (Arizona) and Tim Herron (New Mexico), who say they'd buy handguns directly from Elite Precision. Herron said the receiving dealer he uses typically charges him $30 to $40 per transfer.
- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which counts all three of the other plaintiffs among its members.
The district court in the Northern District of Texas had dismissed the case. The Fifth Circuit reversed.
What the Court Decided, and Why
The court applied the two-step test from the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen:
- Step 1: The majority held that the ban is covered by the Second Amendment's plain text. In short, the right to keep arms includes the right to buy them, and this law flatly forbids a whole category of otherwise lawful handgun purchases.
- Step 2: The government had to show the ban fits the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The majority said it didn't. Founding-era laws on the arms trade, it held, are too different from a modern ban on interstate handgun sales.
Instead of sending the case back to the district court, the panel decided it outright: "The judgment of dismissal is REVERSED, and judgment is RENDERED for the plaintiffs." The opinion doesn't spell out what the final injunction should look like or whom it protects. That matters a lot, as you'll see below.
Judge Haynes's dissent is short. She agreed with the district court that these provisions "are not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment" and would have affirmed.
A Split With the Second Circuit
The Fifth Circuit openly disagreed with the Second Circuit. In United States v. Vereen, 152 F.4th 89 (2d Cir. 2025), the Second Circuit upheld this same ban, finding colonial and founding-era laws on moving firearms and gunpowder across borders enough to justify it. The Supreme Court denied review in Vereen in 2026. The Fifth Circuit wrote: "We reject the Second Circuit's approach."
When two federal appeals courts disagree on whether the same federal law is constitutional, the Supreme Court is more likely to take the issue up eventually. That doesn't guarantee it will.
Why This Doesn’t Change Anything for You Yet
1. The ruling isn’t in effect
A federal appeals court decision doesn't take effect until the court issues its "mandate." The Fifth Circuit's docket lists the mandate date as November 9, 2026. If the government asks for rehearing, the mandate is normally held until that request is decided.
2. Who it protects is unsettled
Even after the mandate issues, it isn't clear who's covered. In Trump v. CASA (2025), the Supreme Court sharply limited "universal" injunctions that protect people who aren't parties to a case. So relief here may cover only the named plaintiffs, and possibly FPC's members. Courts have handled association members differently, so I wouldn't assume anything about that yet. As NSSF put it in its September 21 member alert, "the scope of relief is unsettled," and it's unclear whether the government will say the judgment only applies to the named parties.
3. Geography
As precedent, a Fifth Circuit decision binds the federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It isn't binding anywhere else, and the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) has gone the other way.
4. ATF hasn’t changed its guidance
As of today, ATF hasn't issued any new guidance on this ruling. Its existing position is unchanged: an FFL generally can't deliver a firearm directly to an out-of-state resident, except for qualifying in-person rifle and shotgun sales. (Compare that with ATF's recent NFA enforcement-discretion policy, which ATF announced publicly. Nothing like that exists here.)
NSSF's recommendation matches mine: for now, don't transfer a handgun directly to a customer from another state. You can still ship the handgun to an FFL in the buyer's state to do the transfer, just like before.
What Happens Next: Key Dates
- Rehearing en banc (around early November 2026): The government can ask the full Fifth Circuit to rehear the case. When the United States is a party, the federal appellate rules generally allow 45 days, which points to about November 2. NSSF's alert used an earlier date (October 28), so watch the docket.
- Mandate (November 9, 2026, per the docket): The earliest the ruling can take effect, and only if there's no rehearing petition.
- Supreme Court (about December 17, 2026): A petition for certiorari is generally due 90 days after the judgment, or 90 days after any rehearing request is denied.
As of the date above, I haven't found any public statement from the Department of Justice about whether it will seek rehearing or Supreme Court review. I'll update this post when that changes.
What This Could Mean If It Sticks
If this ruling survives and ends up covering dealers broadly, it could change how handgun sales work: a dealer could sell directly to a buyer from another state without a second FFL in the middle. That could mean new customers for dealers and less transfer work for others. But that's a big "if," and it's not where we are t