Yesterday, in Butler v. Bondi, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its statutory authority by issuing its 2024 Final Rule expanding the definition of being “engaged in the business” of “dealing in firearms.”
Congress forbids anyone, “except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms.” Dealing in firearms without a license is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, and a loss of the right to possess a firearm.
Under the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 (which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968), someone is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms if that person “deal[s] in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” The 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) altered that definition by replacing “livelihood and profit” with “to predominantly earn a profit.” The BSCA did not alter FOPA’s exclusion for “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”
On April 19, 2024, the ATF promulgated the Final Rule “to clarify[] the criteria for determining when a person is ‘engaged in the business.’” The Final Rule provides that “there is no minimum threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensing requirement” and that “there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is ‘engaged in the business’ of dealing in firearms.” It explains that “even a single firearm transaction or offer to engage in a transaction . . . may require a license.” The Final Rule also excludes firearms acquired for “personal protection” from the firearms that may be sold from a personal collection without a license. The ATF’s Final Rule thus rewrites the law, contradicts Congress’ statutory language, and adds confusion rather than clarification.
On July 19, 2024, the National Rifle Association and two NRA members sued the Attorney General, the ATF, the ATF Director, and the Department of Justice, asking the district court to invalidate the Final Rule on several grounds.
Yesterday, the district court invalidated the Final Rule, holding that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing it. The court issued a permanent injunction against the ATF and the DOJ from enforcing several provisions of the Final Rule against the plaintiffs in the case, including all members of the NRA, and entered a declaratory judgment to that effect.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on NRA-ILA’s ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights, and please visit www.nraila.org/litigation to keep up to date on NRA-ILA’s ongoing litigation efforts.
More Like This From Around The NRA
