May 1, 2024 – As previously reported, the ATF published a Final Rule regarding the Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms in the Federal Register on April 19, 2024 (“Final Rule”). The Final Rule, which is scheduled to go into effect on May 20, 2024, greatly expands the definition of who is considered to be engaged in business as a firearms dealer and is required to have a Federal Firearms License (“FFL”). Today, three lawsuits were filed in different federal courts challenging the constitutionality of the Final Rule.
One complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas by twenty states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The second complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas by Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Utah. The third complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Florida. Various individuals and pro-Second Amendment groups joined as plaintiffs in the first two complaints. All of the complaints name the Department of Justice, the ATF, Attorney General Garland, and Director Dettelbach as defendants.
The complaints allege that the Final Rule goes beyond the scope of the authority granted to the ATF through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. They claim that the ATF improperly used that limited delegation of authority to completely re-write the longstanding definition of who is considered to be engaged in business as a firearms dealer and have an FFL. Plaintiffs allege that the Final Rule violates the Second Amendment, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule violates Americans’ constitutional right to privately buy and sell firearms, and would subject hundreds of thousands of law-abiding firearm owners to potential prosecution for selling a single firearm to a friend or neighbor. The complaints also contend that the Final Rule would require almost anyone who wants to sell a firearm to obtain an FFL, and comply with all of the associated requirements, including completion of 4473 forms and background checks. Plaintiffs note that by doing so, the Final Rule attempts to create a universal background check requirement, which Congress has refused to enact.
Plaintiffs are requesting that the courts declare the Final Rule to be unconstitutional and enter an injunction barring it from going into effect while the lawsuits are pending. By filing these complaints in three different courts, each of which are in a different circuit (the Eighth, Fifth, and Eleventh, respectively), the states have greatly increased the chance of an injunction being entered barring the Final Rule from going into effect.
Renzulli Law Firm will continue to monitor these lawsuits and other potential challenges to the Final Rule. If you have any questions about the ATF’s Final Rule or these legal challenges, please contact John F. Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.