ATF to Review Definition of “Engaged in the Business” for FFLs

AmmoLand ^ | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

DOJ press release on April 7, 2025, included a review of Final Rule 2022R-17F, the definition of what it means to be “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. From the atf.gov:

“Today’s repeal of the Zero Tolerance Policy and the comprehensive review of stabilizing brace regulations and the definition of ‘engaged in the business’ marks a pivotal step toward restoring fairness and clarity in firearms regulation,” said Acting ATF Director Kash Patel. “We are committed to working with all stakeholders to ensure our policies are balanced, constitutional and protective of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

The leadership of the Biden administration, using the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), had proposed a radical restructuring of the definition of “engaged in the business” based on minor changes made in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA). The BSCA went into effect on June 25, 2022.

The BSCA made a minor change in the wording of the definition. The words were changed from  “with the principle objective of livelihood and profit” to “to predominantly earn a profit“. This minor wording change was used as a pretext by the Biden administration to radically change firearms law in the United States. From AmmoLand:

Some of the most radical changes proposed in the new ATF rule are to completely redefine “personal collection,” “personal collection of firearms,” “personal firearms collection,” and “hobby.”  Three of the long-term exceptions to “engaged in the business” have been:

a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

The changes proposed by the “Final rule” change the exceptions above to exclude any that involved self-defense or selling a firearm for more

[marktwain]

The Trump administration could include several reforms in their review, instead of merely cancelling the Biden ATF activism.

[Robert DeLong]

FFL = Federal Firearms License

[Twotone]

Just get rid of the ATF!

[marktwain]

Thank you for clarifying the acronym.

[marktwain]

Gitting rid of the ATF does not solve the problem. It simply relocates it.

We need to reform or repeal the gun laws, not just get rid of one agency.

What good does it do to “get rid” of the ATF when the FBI will then take up responsibility for enforcing the gun laws?

[SecondAmendment]

How is this Constitutional ?

The ATF thinks its being cute by calling them rules instead of laws, but the ATF (and all of the other DC TLA agencies) which are part of the Executive branch ARE MAKING LAWS WHEN THIS IS THE EXCLUSIVE ROLE OF CONGRESS.

[faithhopecharity]

restore constitutional governance and close down anti-constitutional bureaus. I’m fine with honoring the employees by offering them good new career paths in legitimate agencies.

[Dalberg-Acton]

Justice Clarence Thomas (the best one on the court) agrees with you.

[Salgak]

Nonsense, Just make Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms what it should be:

A Drive-thru window at a convenience store. . (grin)

[Antihero101607]

That reminds me, has anybody heard anything on the whether or not the “searchable database” that Steve Dettlebach assured us was not an illegal gun registry will be destroyed?

[marktwain]

The Congress has always given some leeway to agencies to interpret law and make rules.

The question is: How much leeway? Is the Agency significantly changing the intent of the law Congress passed?

The ATF under Biden made changes in the law. Some of those changes have been shot down by the courts. Some have been upheld. Some are being reversed or corrected by the Trump administration.

It is a big difference if the Agency changes the form used to apply for an importation license, or if they decide to not allow importation of something allowed by law.

For decades the Congress has given more and more power to the administrative state. It is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. That is changing under the current Supreme Court.

[marktwain]

I recall a fair number of Congresscritters were calling for the Trump Administration to have it destroyed.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I have long said that we need an amendment to the Constitution that clarifies that no agency, authority, board, commission, committee, department, division, office, et created by Congress shall have the authority to pass any rule or regulation with the power to punish, or fine any person or company with punitive, monetary, or imprisonment.

[Robert DeLong]

I just can’t remember them all anymore, and often times they can be associated with more than one entity.
<
So, to save you from getting the question, I just provided what I learned. 🙂👍

[Antihero101607]

Awesome!

[Deaf Smith]

SCOTUS knocked down the Chevron Difference which should end rule (law) making by the ATF&E.

[SecondAmendment]

> Justice Clarence Thomas (the best one on the court) agrees with you.

It's disturbing that it isn't all of them.

[Deaf Smith]

That was the Chevron Difference that SCOTUS knocked down recently.

[Big Red Badger]

Reducing a personal collection needs to be Exempted , at least Defined.

[Equine1952]

That remark made me smile. Thank you.