896 F.3d 699
5th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (FFL Fredric Mance and out-of-state purchasers Andrew and Tracy Hanson, D.C. residents) sought to buy handguns in Texas; federal law barred direct sale because purchasers were nonresidents of Texas.
- Federal law (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3), (b)(3) and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a)) generally requires interstate handgun purchases to be routed through an FFL in the buyer’s state.
- Hansons could have obtained the guns via transfer to the sole D.C. FFL but declined due to transfer fees and shipping; that D.C. dealer only sells guns transferred in from out-of-state FFLs under local rules.
- Plaintiffs sued, alleging violations of the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component; the district court enjoined enforcement.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, assuming (without deciding) that the laws implicate the Second Amendment and applying strict scrutiny, and held the in-state sales requirement is constitutional as applied and facially; it also rejected the Fifth Amendment equal-protection challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §§ 922(a)(3)/(b)(3) and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99 violate the Second Amendment (facial) | Statute unlawfully restricts the right to acquire handguns across state lines; not "longstanding" and should fail strict scrutiny | Law is a permissible condition on commercial sales to prevent circumvention of state laws and is narrowly tailored to that compelling interest | Reversed district court: statute survives heightened scrutiny; not invalidated facially |
| Whether law is unconstitutional as-applied to the Hansons/Mance | As-applied, the law unreasonably burdens Hansons who are qualified under D.C. law and could be vetted remotely | The transfer requirement is the least restrictive means to ensure compliance with buyer-state laws and prevent fraud/circumvention | Reversed: as-applied challenge fails; transfers to in-state FFLs are adequate and practical |
| Level of scrutiny and narrow tailoring (burden on core Second Amendment rights) | Strict scrutiny applies and statute is not narrowly tailored because modern background checks/NICS could allow safe out-of-state sales | Even under strict scrutiny, government interest in preventing circumvention of state gun laws is compelling; statute is narrowly tailored given variations in state law and practical limits on out-of-state dealers’ ability to verify compliance | Court assumed strict scrutiny and found the statute narrowly tailored and justified by compelling interests |
| Fifth Amendment equal protection (residency classification) | Statute discriminates on residency and burdens a fundamental right, triggering strict scrutiny | Law treats all states uniformly (applies to sellers and buyers in every state) and does not favor particular residents; no suspect class | Reversed: no equal-protection violation because statute imposes uniform restrictions rather than privileging residents of any single state |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (announces individual right to possess and carry weapons for self-defense and lists presumptively lawful regulations)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the states; recognizes right as fundamental)
- Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) (adopts two-step Second Amendment framework and analyzes commercial-sale restrictions)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (principle on limits of forcing state officers to perform federal background-check duties)