Via Ammoland by Ammoland Editors & Staff
FORT WORTH, Texas – As part of its ongoing mission to ensure individuals can exercise their right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a motion for summary judgment in the case of Elite Precision Customs v. ATF. At issue in FPC’s lawsuit are federal laws that ban licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to buyers who live in another state. That, Firearms Policy Coalition says, is unconstitutional.
Background on Elite Precision Customs v. ATF
This case challenges the federal prohibition on direct interstate handgun sales to law-abiding citizens. Under current law, it is illegal for federally licensed firearms dealers to sell handguns to individuals who reside in a different state, even if the buyer is fully eligible to possess firearms and passes a background check. Instead, buyers must arrange for the handgun to be shipped to a dealer in their home state, incurring additional fees and delays.
Elite Precision Customs, a Texas-based gun shop, along with individual plaintiffs and Firearms Policy Coalition, argue this restriction violates the Second Amendment. They point out that modern background check systems already ensure compliance with federal and state laws, making the 1968-era ban unnecessary and burdensome.
The lawsuit builds on earlier litigation (Mance v. Holder), which initially struck down the ban before being overturned on appeal under a legal test that the Supreme Court has since rejected in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Plaintiffs now ask the court to permanently block enforcement of the ban, allowing eligible Americans to purchase handguns directly from out-of-state dealers without the current interstate transfer hurdles.
“Just like we recently secured a summary judgment order striking down California’s unconstitutional ban on firearm carry by non-residents, we intend to end this similarly unconstitutional federal ban on firearm purchases by non-residents,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Our many victories for the People of the United States and our members clearly show that the right to keep and bear arms unquestionably exists throughout the United States. We are proud to continue eliminating laws that prevent you from exercising your right to purchase and carry firearms for lawful purposes when, where, and how you choose.”
Under the Supreme Court’s precedents, courts are required to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. That analysis, the plaintiffs say, shows why this federal ban cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.
“Despite throwing at the wall a wide variety of regulations and restrictions on the right that existed between the early 17th century and the early 19th, the Government does not cite a single law that burdened the right of peaceable citizens to acquire arms in another state or colony in any way like the laws at issue here, or for anything approaching the same reasons,” “The issue for this Court to resolve is simply whether the Government’s ban is historically justifiable, and it is not,” FPC and its co-plaintiffs argue in the brief.
“That is fatal to the Government’s case,” they say. Accordingly, Firearms Policy Coalition’s brief argues, “This Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and deny the Government’s motion to dismiss.”
If Firearms Policy Coalition and its co-plaintiffs are ultimately successful, the federal government will no longer be able to enforce the ban, and individuals will be able to buy handguns in states other than their state of residence.
The brief can be viewed atfirearmspolicy.org/eliteprecision. FPC has been joined in this case by Elite Precision Customs LLC and two individual FPC members. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, along with Cody J. Wisniewski of FPC Action Foundation and R. Brent Cooper of Cooper & Scully, P.C. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this FPC Law case.
Individuals who want to support this important pro-Second Amendment lawsuit and dozens of other cases can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.
Read in its entirety at ammoland.com.
READ NEXT: Gun Safety For Beginners
This is an old, old ban. I remember one of my uncles who was living in AL at the Time being refused the purchase of a 30.06 BAR in GA in 1973. Fortunately he found someone to make the purchase for him (illegally of course). He was a 50 year old WWII vet, PhD working for U.S.D.A. as the director of a research station. An obvious terrorist no doubt.
This makes sense. ALL states use the SAME federal database for background checks. I shouldn’t need to, while at a dealer not in my state, that might have a particular weapon I might like to have, there shouldn’t need to be these extra hoops to jump through. That said, If I found one while searching on line, then YES, it should be shipped to my local store and go through the background check at that time.