27 States Push Back Against ATF

Published on December 11, 2023
Duration: 14:54

This video provides an expert analysis of the ATF's proposed rule change redefining "engaged in the business" for firearms dealers. It details how 27 states, led by their Attorneys General, are formally opposing this rule, arguing it infringes on Second Amendment rights and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The content highlights the broad definitions used by the ATF and encourages viewers to engage with their state officials.

Quick Summary

Twenty-seven states are formally opposing a proposed ATF rule change that redefines "engaged in the business" of firearms dealing. Critics argue the rule infringes on Second Amendment rights, violates the Administrative Procedure Act by being arbitrary and capricious, and could criminalize private sellers by requiring federal licenses and record-keeping for even occasional sales.

Chapters

  1. 00:00ATF Rule Pushback Introduction
  2. 00:14CMMG Sponsor Message
  3. 00:50ATF Proposed Rule on Dealers
  4. 01:45States Opposing ATF Rule
  5. 02:39Broad Definition of 'Predominantly for Profit'
  6. 03:55Record Keeping and Exceptions
  7. 05:46Violation of Second Amendment (Part 1)
  8. 07:04Violation of Second Amendment (Part 2)
  9. 09:50Arbitrary and Capricious Rule/Bad Public Policy
  10. 11:34Call to Action for Viewers

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the ATF's proposed rule change regarding firearms dealers?

The ATF proposed a rule change to redefine "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms. This could require private individuals selling firearms to obtain federal licenses, maintain records, and be subject to ATF inspections, even for occasional sales.

Which states are pushing back against the ATF's proposed rule?

Twenty-seven states, through their Attorneys General, have formally opposed the ATF's proposed rule. These include states like Montana, Kansas, Iowa, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Arizona.

Why are states opposing the ATF's proposed rule?

States argue the rule infringes on Second Amendment rights, is an arbitrary and capricious application of the Administrative Procedure Act, and could criminalize law-abiding citizens. They contend the ATF is overstepping its authority by attempting to make law through regulation.

What are the key concerns about the ATF's definition of 'engaged in the business'?

The proposed definition of 'predominantly for profit' is seen as overly broad, potentially encompassing actions like advertising or having business cards. Critics also point to the mandate for indefinite record-keeping and the presumption of being a dealer after selling even a single firearm.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News

View all →