The states of Texas, Louisiana, Utah and Mississippi are opposing a Department of Justice (DOJ) motion in the states’ ongoing “engaged in the business” lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
The case seeks to block the Biden Administration’s unlawful “engaged in the business” ATF rule, and a district court finding had already been lodged in favor of the plaintiffs, which includes the states, the Gun Owners of America (GOA), and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), among others.
But now, GOA says the DOJ is attempting to stall the case by asking for a stay (stoppage) of the lower court decision, which could delay a resolution for an indefinite period of time.
The Texas Attorney General’s office made it clear that the DOJ’s request to stay the case only serves to further entrench the issue in a “quagmire of administrative process and serial litigation.” As the case is now on the brink of resolution, the DOJ’s actions seek to prolong the legal uncertainty, making it harder for gun owners to defend their rights.
Erich Pratt, senior vice president of GOA, said, “We’ve already won a preliminary victory in the lower court, and the DOJ’s attempt to now stay the case is nothing but a delay tactic. A stay risks entrenching this case in an endless cycle of bureaucracy, and we’re not going to let that happen. The judge in our case issued a strong preliminary ruling, and it’s time to move forward—no more stalling. We encourage Attorney General Pam Bondi to put the right people in charge of handling these critical cases. DOJ bureaucrats are standing in the way of justice, and it’s time to make sure the right people are held accountable.”
On the campaign trail, President Trump said: “Biden is trying to ban all private gun transfers in the United States with a stroke of a pen. Under a Trump administration, all of those Biden disasters get ripped up and torn out my first week.”
Other plaintiffs include a citizen, Jeffrey W. Tormey, Tennessee Firearms Association, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League. The case was heard in the United States District Court Northern District of Texas in Amarillo. The state attorneys general included Ken Paxton (Texas), Lynn Fitch (Mississippi), Liz Murrill (Louisiana), and Sean D. Reyes (Utah). The case is State of Texas et al v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives et al, heard by Judge Matthew J Kacsmaryk.
From the original case documents, “Jeffrey W. Tormey is a firearm owner and a member of Gun Owners of America, Tennessee Firearms Association, and Virginia Citizens Defense League, residing in Amarillo, Texas, within this district. Mr. Tormey is eligible to possess firearms under state and federal law and is an avid gun owner and Second Amendment supporter. Mr. Tormey possesses a large collection of firearms, and over the years has occasionally purchased, traded, and sold various firearms through private sales, in order to enhance his personal collection, as finances allow. Mr. Tormey has never held a federal firearms license and has never been “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. Mr. Tormey wishes to continue to engage in this same lawful course of activity, as he has done during his several decades of firearms ownership. Nevertheless, as described further in his declaration, Mr. Tormey reasonably fears that the vague threats and ambiguous definitions in the Final Rule will be yielded as a weapon against him, in order to threaten and to coerce him into complying with ATF’s bureaucratic edict, and forcing him to obtain a license that federal law does not require he obtain. Mr. Tormey fears that, should he continue to engage in this lawful behavior that the statute allows, but which the Final Rule now declares unlawful, he will be subject to administrative action, civil forfeiture, an ATF cease-and-desist letter, or even arrest and criminal ndictment.”
Sam Paredes, on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, added, “While we attempted to resolve this behind the scenes, it’s clear that career bureaucrats in the DOJ have made the wrong decision. We’re calling out this misconduct, and we want to put the spotlight on those responsible for blocking the victory we’ve achieved. President Trump said he would ‘rip up’ this unlawful Rule, and so it’s inexplicable why the DOJ is now standing in the way of the court being able to do just that.”
