The ATF’s Final Rule Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms amounts to 466 pages of responses to comments and the final rule itself. Over 252,000 of the 258,000 comments or 98% in favor of the proposed rule were form letters with identical text found online and recommended by (anti-gun) organizations. Only 5,140 were not form letters. Of the 99,000 comments opposed to the rule, 80,000 or 81% were form letters. That means that 18,810 were not form letters. So more than three times the numbers of opponents filed comments with actual substance as did those in favor.
The final rule is substantially the same as the proposed rule. See my previous post “‘He’s at it again!’ Merrick Garland proposes ever-more intrusive ATF regulations.” A number of points that I (and others) made in comments filed in opposition to the proposed rule were taken seriously enough for ATF to reject at length.
One new item stands out. The Gun Control Act (GCA) excludes occasional sales and purchases of a “personal collection” of firearms from the term “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. The proposed rule defined “personal collection” to include curios and relics and firearms used in recreational activities. In response to numerous comments criticizing the proposal for not including firearms used for self-defense, the final rule explicitly states that “the term [personal collection] shall not include firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection.” Yet nothing in the statute excludes such firearms from being part of a personal collection.
By purporting to exclude the occasional buying and selling of firearms acquired for self-defense from the “personal collection” category, the rule would render the person more likely to be subject to the licensing requirement. Yet that category was enacted by the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, which declared that the rights of citizens … to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution … require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies.” And the Supreme Court stated in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense.”
In defining “engaged in the business” as a dealer, the rule states that “there is no minimum threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensing requirement,” and that “even a single firearm transaction or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence … may require a license.” Sounds pretty vague given that engaging in business of dealing in firearms without a license is a serious felony.
The rule purports to create a presumption in civil and administrative proceedings that one is engaged in the business if one “repetitively resells or offers for resale firearms” within 30 days after purchase, or within a year after purchase if the firearms are “new, or like new in their original packaging” or “the same make and model, or variants thereof.” These are activities in which collectors typically engage – sometimes quickly moving the collection up the ladder with more collectible acquisitions and collecting variations of the same make and model. Nothing in the GCA imposes such time limits.
The rule also purports to create a presumption in civil and administrative proceedings that “a person has intent to predominantly earn a profit” if the person “posts firearms for resale, including through the Internet” or repetitively rents “a table or space at a gun show,” and the list of presumptions “are not exhaustive.” Again, these are activities in which collectors typically engage. And the statute excludes from such “predominant intent to earn a profit” occasional sales to enhance a personal collection.
The rule claims that the above rebuttable presumptions do not apply in criminal cases, but says the opposite by stating that “they may be useful to courts in criminal cases, for example, when instructing juries regarding permissible inferences.” Jury instructions are based on statutory text and judicial opinions, not advocacy by the very agency involved in prosecuting alleged violations.
Many comments argued that the rule violates the Second Amendment. While dictum in Heller did not question the validity of “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” the new rule – which is not a “law” – redefines “engaged in the business” to include many private, non-commercial sales.
ATF’s commentary includes the following fundamental misunderstanding of Supreme Court precedent: “In response to commenters stating that the Department should not use the Heller two-step process, the Department acknowledges that Bruen abrogated the ‘two-step’ framework of Heller, as ‘one step too many,’ and rejected the application of means-end scrutiny at the second step.” But it was lower courts that obstructed Heller, not Heller, that invented the two-step framework. Relying on text and history, Heller rejected means-ends scrutiny (for which Justice Breyer argued in his dissent), and N.Y.
The case of State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen further solidified the rejection of certain licensing requirements. In response to the expanded licensing rule, the ATF’s arguments attempt to draw historical comparisons that do not align with the radical expansion of the requirement. The agency’s lack of delegated authority to implement such a rule is also highlighted, citing past legislative actions that limited ATF’s regulatory powers. Additionally, Supreme Court precedents emphasizing consistent interpretation of statutes and limitations on ATF’s regulatory authority are pointed out.
Furthermore, ATF’s insistence on certain erroneous interpretations of the Gun Control Act is noted, along with its unwavering stance on longstanding mistakes. The purpose of the rule, as stated in the commentary, is to increase background checks through more license holders. This rule on “engaged in the business” is part of a series of new regulations introduced by Attorney General Garland, following previous rules on different firearm-related issues.
The article also touches on ongoing legal battles, such as the case of Cargill v. Garland, which addresses the Trump Administration’s “bump-stock” rule. The constant regulatory changes by the executive branch are highlighted, with the hope that the Supreme Court may set limits on such actions.
The article concludes with a discussion of a recent hearing regarding Washington State’s magazine ban, shedding light on the Commissioner’s decision to issue a stay against the injunction. The Commissioner’s remarks during the hearing and his anticipation of a decision on the stay’s permanency are also mentioned, emphasizing the uncertainty surrounding the enforcement of the magazine ban.
Source link
