Federal Ban On Interstate Sale Of Handguns Ruled Unconstitutional

By Dean Weingarten

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals New Orleans Rules Federal Ban On Interstate Sale Of Handguns Ruled Unconstitutional
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals New Orleans Rules Federal Ban On Interstate Sale Of Handguns Ruled Unconstitutional
Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation have achieved another significant victory toward restoring second amendment rights..

In the federal District Court in Dallas, United States Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the interstate ban on handgun sales by federally licensed dealers is unconstitutional.


From the ruling(PDF):


Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.

Accordingly, the Court DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a) are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing these provisions. The Court will issue its final judgment separately.

SO ORDERED on this 11th day of February, 2015.

The court also ruled that the law was unconstitutional on its face, under strict scrutiny:

 Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendants have not shown that the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means of achieving the Government’s goals under current law. The federal interstate handgun transfer ban is therefore unconstitutional on its face.

The Court further finds, in the alternative, the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is unconstitutional when applied to the facts of this case. The essence of an as-applied challenge is the claim that the manner in which a statute was applied to the plaintiff in a particular circumstance violated the Constitution. See In re Cao, 619 F.3d 410, 434 (5th Cir. 2010); Khachaturian v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 980 F.2d 330, 331 (5th Cir. 1992). Texas law allows the sale of handguns to residents of other states, and the District of Columbia does not prohibit the importation of firearms as long as they are registered. See D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a) (2014). Further, based on the undisputed facts in this case, the Hansons are fully qualified under federal, District of Columbia, and Texas law to purchase and possess handguns, and the Hansons each identified a handgun in Mance’s inventory that is legal for them to possess and bring into the District of Columbia. As discussed above, requiring that the Hansons pay additional costs and fees and wait until they return to the District of Columbia to retrieve their firearms from Sykes amounts to a regime that is not narrowly tailored to achieve the Government’s compelling interest. Accordingly, the federal interstate handgun transfer ban is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs.

The Court also found that the law failed under the standards for intermediate scrutiny, and that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

This is only at the district court level.  It is almost certain that this ruling will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, of which Texas is a part.

This ruling only applies to Federal Firearms License transfers of handguns. It does not apply to private sales of handguns Still, it is a significant step away from the centralization of all regulation and power by the federal government. The essence of the ruling is, as I read it, that preventing law abiding citizens from purchasing handguns in other states is a violation of their Constitutional rights under the Second and Fifth amendments. The judge relied heavily on the existence of the National Instant Check System (NICS) in his logic.

c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Darrell Patton

Steve Scalise introduced a bill in 2015 that would have allowed what the lawsuit is attempting to do.



I have pretty much ignored this law anyway. When traveling, and local restaurants would have copies of the local little shopper paper to browse thru, if I saw a handgun for a good price advertised by a local resident, I would call him up and make an offer. I bought two that way from outside my home state


we already knew it was unconstitutional (illegal), why is the word “people” ignored in the 2nd amend. who is the people? and it doesnt specify which arms . our founders fought an army with the same firearms as the enemy had. I have a god given right to defend my self, family and country with any arms I choose, and I dont need a judge to decide.

Michael Brady

Thanks guys for the hard work!


Great news!! Now to enable purchasers to buy firearms from out of state after submitting the proper verifiable ID and completed Form 4473, notarized if necessary. This is a result of the 1968 GCA. The same requirement exists for this as the plaintiffs objected to in the lawsuit. in that you must receive firearms from out of state through another FFL.