In 2024, then-President Joe Biden's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives promulgated a final rule that broadly expanded the statutory definition of people "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms and subject to federal license and compliance requirements.

On Tuesday, however, a federal judge in Alabama ruled that the ATF exceeded its authority and issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of certain challenged aspects of the rule, according to Breitbart.

Unfortunately, the judge limited his ruling to apply only to the plaintiffs in the case, which included the National Rifle Association and its members. That said, other gun rights organizations have similarly challenged the rule in other cases, and likewise won a similar injunction in at least one of them.

ATF rule expanded who is "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms

In April 2024, the Biden ATF finalized its "engaged in the business" rule, which vaguely and ambiguously broadened the statutory definition of who was required to obtain a federal license to buy, sell, or trade firearms, such that even those who only occassionally did so would be subject to the law's stringent requirements and consequences.

Indeed, the ATF's rule was written with no minimum threshold of purchases or sales and numerous arbitrary presumptions about who was to be considered a firearms dealer. Those presumptions also sharply narrowed the law's so-called "safe harbor" of who was excluded from the license requirements, such as those who only occassionally conducted transactions as a hobby or to expand/liquidate a personal collection of firearms.

The ATF was swiftly challenged by gun owners and gun rights groups in multiple jurisdictions, including one in Alabama by a pair of gun owners who occassionally buy, sell, or trade firearms from their personal collections, along with the NRA.

Judge rules ATF "exceeded its authority"

In a 47-page ruling issued on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Corey Maze, a Trump appointee, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against the government defendants, which included the ATF, Department of Justice, and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Maze took particular issue with how the ATF's broad interpretation of the federal firearms license law could be applied to an individual who merely discussed buying or selling one firearm on one occassion, even if no profit was derived, with the consequences for violations including up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and a lifetime loss of Second Amendment rights.

On that and several other provisions of the rule, Maze determined that the ATF had greatly "exceeded its authority" in promulgating the challenged rule.

In the end, the judge issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the rule against the two plaintiffs and NRA members, and set a date for mid-October for a conference call to discuss other challenged aspects of the rule not dealt with here, as well as possible remedies above and beyond the limited injunction.

Gun rights groups herald the injunction

In an X post, the NRA celebrated, "NRA Win! Court rules Biden Administration's 'engaged in the business' rule unconstitutional. This decision shoots down the Biden-era policy that attempted to block private citizens from selling firearms."

The ruling was also cheered on social media by the Gun Owners of America group, which led a separate successful challenge against the rule in another court, and wrote on X, "Despite @theJusticeDept's continued defense of Biden's 'Engaged in the Business' tyranny, a federal judge in Alabama just struck down the rule for @NRA members. This adds to the injunction we obtained for GOA members in June of 2024."

It is true that the Trump administration's DOJ, under Attorney General Bondi, has continued to defend the challenged ATF rule in court, which is disappointing in light of the administration's claims to protect and defend Second Amendment rights.

That said, Judge Maze noted in his ruling that, the continued defense aside, the DOJ's attorneys did acknowledge that there is an ongoing review of the ATF rule, and did provide notice that the government's position on the rule could change once that review is completed.