A federal judge just delivered a major blow to the Biden administration’s overreach on gun control, siding with law-abiding gun owners over bureaucratic overstep.
Breitbart reported that on Tuesday, a U.S. District Court judge made a landmark decision to stop federal authorities from enforcing key parts of a controversial ATF rule on firearm sales. This isn’t just a win for Second Amendment rights; it’s a sharp reminder that government agencies can’t rewrite the law to fit their agenda.
In a nutshell, the ruling by Judge Corey L. Maze permanently blocks the ATF’s “engaged in the business” rule from being enforced against two Alabama plaintiffs and all members of the National Rifle Association.
Let’s rewind to the beginning of this saga, when the ATF finalized its “engaged in the business” rule on April 10, 2024. This rule was pitched as a way to tighten gun sales by expanding background checks at the point of sale.
The idea was to label certain private transactions as business dealings, forcing them through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
But here’s the rub: the rule’s wording was so vague that even then-ATF Director Steven Dettelbach couldn’t pin down exactly when a private citizen crosses into “business” territory. This left everyday gun owners scratching their heads, worried a single sale could land them in hot water. If that’s not a recipe for government overreach, what is?
Enter Don Butler of Talladega and David Glidewell of Ragland, two Alabama citizens who weren’t about to let their rights be trampled by ambiguous regulations.
They filed a lawsuit, initially dubbed Butler v. Garland, which later became Butler v. Bondi, challenging the ATF’s authority head-on. Their argument was simple: Congress never gave the ATF the power to regulate a single firearm transaction as if it were a full-blown business.
The plaintiffs didn’t stop there—they pointed out that Congress explicitly defined “engaged in the business” as involving multiple firearm dealings as a regular trade.
A one-off sale or even an offer to sell shouldn’t trigger federal oversight, they argued. And they had a point: laws should mean what they say, not what unelected officials wish they said.
Judge Maze saw through the ATF’s smoke and mirrors, agreeing that the agency had stretched its authority beyond the limits set by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
He noted that the ATF’s interpretation could potentially criminalize even a single transaction or offer, which is nowhere near what Congress intended. This isn’t just a legal technicality; it’s a defense of clarity and fairness for gun owners.
Quoting Judge Maze directly, he stated, “ATF exceeded its authority when it interpreted the [Gun Control Act of 1968] to possibly prohibit a single purchase or sale.” That’s a polite but pointed jab at an agency trying to play fast and loose with the law. If the government wants to change gun rules, it needs to go through Congress, not sneak them in through the back door.
In another sharp observation, Judge Maze added that Congress defined business dealings as a “regular course of trade,” not a one-time act. If “regular” means repeated, as he emphasized, then the ATF’s rule clearly oversteps by targeting isolated transactions. This isn’t woke wordplay; it’s common sense meeting legal precision.
The judge’s final order didn’t just slap the ATF on the wrist—it delivered a permanent injunction against enforcing the disputed parts of the rule. This protection covers Butler, Glidewell, and every single member of the NRA. That’s a significant shield for millions of Americans who value their constitutional rights over bureaucratic whims.
Specifically, the injunction bars the Department of Justice, the ATF, Acting Director Daniel Driscoll, and Attorney General Pamela Bondi from applying these flawed provisions.
It’s a clear message: federal agencies aren’t above the law, no matter how much they might wish otherwise. This ruling draws a line in the sand, protecting gun owners from overzealous regulation.
Now, let’s be fair—background checks have a purpose in keeping firearms out of the wrong hands, and no one disputes the need for safety.
But when rules are so murky that honest folks can’t tell if they’re breaking the law, that’s not safety; it’s a trap. The ATF’s vague approach risked punishing the law-abiding while ignoring the real threats.
This decision is a breath of fresh air for those who’ve watched federal agencies chip away at freedoms under the guise of public good. It’s not about rejecting all regulation; it’s about ensuring that rules respect the boundaries set by Congress and the Constitution. Gun owners deserve clarity, not a guessing game with legal consequences.