Quote of the Day
Plaintiffs request the following relief from this Honorable Court:
a. Enter a declaratory judgment stating that the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), 922(b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a), and all other related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, violate the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b. Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants’ enforcement or application of the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), 922(b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a), and all other related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, because it violates the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution;
c. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
d. Award Plaintiffs such other legal and equitable relief as is just and appropriate and
as necessary to effectuate the Court’s judgment.R. Brent Cooper
Cody J. Wisniewski
David H. Thompson
Peter A. Patterson
William V. Bergstrom
January 20, 2025
ELITE PRECISION CUSTOMS LLC; TIM HERRON; FREDDIE BLISH; and FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC v. The BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES
For more information on this case see also:
- FPC Files Fifth Circuit Reply Brief in Lawsuit Challenging Federal Ban on Interstate Handgun Sales – The Tactical Wire | The Tactical Wire (news on the latest filing)
- Elite Precision Customs v. ATF – FPC Law Challenge to Federal Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban (all filings)
I am so pleased this area of 2nd Amendment law is being pursued. It seems like it should be a real slam dunk. If someone can travel to another state and buy weed, get an abortion, or go to church, then why shouldn’t buying a self-defense tool be a no-brainer, “Hell yes, of course!” That’s just from the philosophical viewpoint.
The legal viewpoint is even stronger. The ban on purchasing handguns depending on which side of a line your feet are resting on is obviously an infringement on the plain text of the 2nd Amendment. And, as pointed in this filing:
Bruen reiterated that, “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17. And a court may “[o]nly” conclude that the conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s protection if the government can “justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 24.
- This Court already conducted the type of historical analysis that Bruen requires in Mance. The Court observed that “the earliest known state residency restrictions on the purchase or possession of firearms” occurred in 1909. 74 F. Supp. 3d at 805 (“Defendants have not presented, and the Court cannot find, any earlier evidence of longstanding interstate, geography based, or residency-based firearms restrictions.”). Given this history, the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban must be enjoined again.
My view is that it is low hanging fruit that should gathered first. It creates a slippery slope that will create momentum, make it easier to win difficult cases like AR and even machine gun bans, and, figuratively, result in the anti-gun movement making a high velocity splat in the history dumpster where they belong.