QUESTION PRESENTED
Federal law bars consumers from acquiring handguns
outside their home state. This prohibition limits
choice and price competition, and forces many handgun
buyers to arrange and pay for the handguns’ shipment
to in-state federal firearms licensees (“FFLs”). The
government theorizes that the prohibition is necessary
to combat the circumvention of state and local handgun
laws. Yet some jurisdictions allow interstate handgun
sales, or preclude the circumvention of handgun laws
through retail channels by requiring police authorization
for all handgun transfers. Meanwhile, federal law
allows FFLs to sell rifles and shotguns to non-residents,
so long as they comply with state and local laws.
Washington, D.C. residents Tracey and Andrew
Hanson sought to buy handguns from Fredric Mance,
a Texas-based FFL. The District lacks firearm retailers,
but it authorizes interstate handgun sales, and requires
that all firearm purchases be authorized by
police prior to consumers taking delivery. Reflecting
various divisions among the courts of appeals regarding
the Second Amendment’s application, the Fifth
Circuit divided 8-7 as to whether and how the federal
interstate handgun transfer ban is unconstitutional
on its face or as-applied to the Hanson-Mance transactions.
The question presented is whether prohibiting interstate
handgun sales, facially or as-applied to consumers
whose home jurisdictions authorize such
transactions, violates the Second Amendment and the
equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s
Due Process Clause.
