Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has obtained a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit against the Biden administration over a new regulation that would impact American citizens engaged in private firearms sales.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has the authority to manage and enforce the 1968 Gun Control Act, which stipulates that, with the exception of licensed dealers, any individual engaging in the business of selling firearms without a permit issued by the ATF is considered illegal.
In 1986, the law was amended to define “engaged in the business” as individuals who devote time and effort to the trade of firearms with the primary objective being livelihood and profit.
In 2022, President Joe Biden signed the bipartisan Safe Communities Act, which further expanded the definition to specify that individuals engaged in firearms transactions must have a “primary objective” of “for profit” rather than “livelihood and profit.”
In April, the ATF issued a final rule adopting the definition of “engaged in the business” to determine whether firearms sellers are engaged in the business of firearms transactions or could face legal action. On May 1st, Paxton led a coalition of states and multiple organizations in suing the ATF, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Attorney General, and the ATF Director.
The lawsuit argues that the final rule would potentially criminalize “thousands of law-abiding gun owners simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage in private firearm sales.”
It warns that the regulation could turn many Americans into “felons overnight” and requests the court to issue a stay on the final rule until its legality is reviewed.
On May 19th, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk sided with the plaintiffs in the case, temporarily halting the ATF and DOJ from enforcing the final regulations until June 2nd.
Judge Kacsmaryk’s court order stated that the ATF clarified in its final rule that even “a single firearms transaction or the proposal to engage in a transaction” might warrant a permit.
The final rule stipulates that firearms transactions can also occur through “gun shows or events, flea markets, auctions, shooting ranges or clubs, from someone’s home, by mail-order, over the internet.”
The judge pointed out that the plaintiffs “are likely to prevail on the merits” and noted that the ATF’s final rule “may violate” the Administrative Procedure Act.
The judge summarized that the final rule’s inclusion of “even a single firearms transaction or the proposal to engage in a transaction… may warrant a license,” contradicts the provisions of the Safe Communities Act.
The Act specifies that “engaged in the business” only applies to those profiting from “repeated purchases and sales of firearms” and explicitly states that this definition does not apply to individuals who occasionally sell, exchange, or purchase firearms to enhance personal collections or hobbies, or to sell all or part of their personal collection of firearms. This is known as the safe harbor provision of the rule.
Despite the fact that two-thirds of Americans own firearms for defense and protection purposes, the ATF maintains its interpretation, meaning that if the final rule takes effect, this provision “will not provide a safe harbor for the vast majority of gun owners,” Judge Kacsmaryk wrote.
Furthermore, the final rule creates various “problematic” assumptions, such as assuming “when one has an ‘intent to primarily profit.'”
The court order stated that these assumptions require firearm owners to prove their innocence rather than the government proving their guilt.
The judge wrote, “Plaintiffs’ concern that this thumb on the scale could lead to civil or criminal penalties for conduct that was previously considered lawful is understandable.” “Nevertheless, ATF claims that its ‘understanding of existing case law’ and ‘subject-matter expertise’ will prevent misuse or overuse of these assumptions.”
Following the ruling, Paxton expressed, “I am pleased that we were able to obtain this restraining order to prevent this unlawful rule from taking effect. The Biden administration cannot unilaterally undermine the constitutional rights of Americans and abolish the Second Amendment.”
When the Department of Justice announced the latest definition of “engaged in the business” for firearms dealers in April, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland defended the rule, stating that it would save lives.
“Under this provision, whether you sell firearms online, at a gun show, or at a physical store: if you’re selling firearms primarily for profit, you must get a license and undergo a background check,” he said. “This provision is a historic step by the Department of Justice to combat gun violence. It will save lives.”
ATF Director Steven Dettelbach stated that the final rule is aimed at “ensuring compliance in an important area of existing law, data shows that a significant number of people openly flout that law. This not only leads to unfairness but also potentially dangerous consequences in these situations.”
“This is to protect the lives of innocent, law-abiding Americans and the rule of law,” Dettelbach said. “The underground firearms market is vast and expanding, with individuals engaging in firearms transactions without permits.”
Epoch Times reached out to the ATF and DOJ for comment.