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

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. ii RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT No parent or publicly owned corporation owns 10% or more of the stock in Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.