By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New – SCOTUS: Conference of Feb. 6: The conference did not produce any publicly recorded orders resolving Second Amendment cases; United States v. Ali Danial Hemani: Case No. 24-1234: This case has been scheduled for a March 2 hearing; Courts of Appeal; Texas: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Elite Precision Customs v. ATF: Case No: 25‑11206: is a Second Amendment challenge to the federal ban that prevents federally licensed dealers from selling handguns directly to out‑of‑state residents, forcing such sales through a dealer in the buyer’s home state. where the district court upheld the ban on Sept. 30, 2025.
SCOTUS
Conference of Feb. 6: The Friday conference did not produce any publicly recorded orders resolving Second Amendment cases.
United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234: This case was granted certiorari in October 2025 and is scheduled for oral argument on March 2, 2026. The United States is the petitioner, and Ali Danial Hemani is the respondent. The Court granted certiorari to decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—the federal law that bans anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm—violates the Second Amendment as applied to Hemani, a habitual marijuana user who possessed a handgun at home.
Courts of Appeal
Texas: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Elite Precision Customs v. ATF: Case No: 25‑11206: This is an appeal of Elite Precision Customs LLC et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al., No. 4:25‑cv‑00044‑P (N.D. Tex.), which is a Second Amendment challenge to the federal ban that prevents federally licensed dealers from selling handguns directly to out‑of‑state residents, forcing such sales through a dealer in the buyer’s home state. where the district court upheld the ban on Sept. 30, 2025.
- On Sept. 30, Judge Mark T. Pittman granted the Government’s motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the interstate handgun‑sale restrictions (“Sale Restrictions”) do not violate the Second Amendment.
- The opinion characterizes the federal scheme as a commercial regulation that does not operate as a de facto prohibition on handgun possession, but instead as a permissible delay and channeling mechanism, drawing on Fifth Circuit precedent such as McRorey (upholding a ten‑day waiting period) and distinguishing earlier challenges to handgun transfer rules.
- The court concluded that the Sale Restrictions are not abusive or an outright ban, and thus fall within the category of lawful regulatory measures, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that Bruen transformed such transactional burdens into per se unconstitutional infringements.
- Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on Oct. 28, 2025. On Feb. 4, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), along with Elite Precision Customs LLC and two individual FPC members, filed their opening brief in the Fifth Circuit challenging the federal handgun interstate transfer ban.
Substance of the FPC opening brief and its key themes are:
- The brief argues that the Sale Restrictions violate the core of the Second Amendment by preventing otherwise lawful buyers from purchasing handguns directly from licensed dealers in other states, turning a right into what FPC characterizes as an impermissible “second‑class” liberty.
- FPC contends the district court “abandoned” the Supreme Court’s Bruen test and engaged in “constitutional gaslighting” by treating the federal ban as a minor inconvenience rather than a categorical barrier to interstate handgun acquisition.
- The brief urges the Fifth Circuit to reverse and to “secure the Second Amendment as a fundamental liberty,” arguing that the government cannot justify the interstate handgun sales ban under the text‑and‑history framework and that historical regulations do not support residency‑based prohibitions on purchasing from licensed dealers.
- FPC emphasizes that striking down the ban would provide relief for “millions” of peaceable individuals who currently must use more expensive, cumbersome arrangements (shipping through an in‑state FFL) to obtain handguns while traveling or shopping across state lines.
In their brief they are pressing a robust Bruen‑style textual and historical attack on the residency‑based transfer restrictions and are asking for complete invalidation of the ban as applied to licensed dealer handgun sales to out‑of‑state residents.
Government/ATF position
- In the district court, the Government defended the interstate handgun transfer restrictions as serving “legitimate objectives” and imposing only a “modest” burden on the right to keep and bear arms, an argument summarized in coverage of their briefing.
- The Government’s briefing emphasized that buyers remain able to obtain handguns via an in‑state dealer, framing the law as a regulation of the commercial channel rather than a denial of possession, and relied on McRorey and similar decisions to analogize the residence‑based transfer scheme to permissible waiting‑period or background‑check regulations.
- You can expect the Fifth Circuit brief to repeat and refine these themes under Bruen’s text‑and‑history framework, arguing that the residency‑based rules are consistent with historical regulation of interstate firearm commerce and with conditions on FFL sales.
Hearing date and status at the Fifth Circuit
- As of this update, there is no publicly posted Fifth Circuit oral‑argument date for Elite Precision Customs v. ATF, No. 25‑11206; the docket and FPC’s own litigation page simply reflect that briefing is underway and argument will be set later.
