The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) recently acquired plaintiffs in a lawsuit to challenge the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule defining who qualifies as a firearms dealer.
Last month, 1819 News reported that NRA-ILA was seeking Alabama plaintiffs to sue over the ATF's "engaged in the business" designation, which gives a strict definition of who classifies as a gun "dealer," severely limiting who can sell a personal firearm.
On Monday, NRA-ILA announced it had officially sued the Biden administration's ATF, challenging the rule in federal court.
"The ATF's Final Rule stands to turn countless upstanding and well-intending citizens into criminals for exercising their constitutional rights," said Randy Kozuch, executive director of NRA-ILA. "When ATF released this Final Rule, NRA promised to use every means necessary to stop this egregious interpretation of the law. Now that the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Loper Bright, Cargill, and Rahimi make clear that the ATF does not have unfettered authority to arbitrarily restrict NRA Members' rights to buy and sell firearms, the NRA is fighting back."
NRA and two individuals, Don Butler and David Glidewell, filed the lawsuit challenging the ATF's Final Rule in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint alleges that the Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it exceeds the ATF's statutory and jurisdictional authority and is arbitrary and capricious; violates the Fifth Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague; violates the Second Amendment by infringing the rights to keep, bear, buy and sell arms; and violates the Separation of Powers, non-delegation doctrine, and Take Care Clause by usurping legislative powers and prohibiting lawful conduct by executive action.
Under the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986, 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 a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."
The ATF's final rule says, "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. For example, even a single firearm transaction or offer to engage in a transaction . . . may require a license."
NRA-ILA claims the rule rewrites the law, contradicts Congress's statutory language and adds confusion rather than clarification.
The entire federal lawsuit can be found here.
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email craig.monger@1819news.com.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
