Texas leads 4-state coalition suing to void rules expanding backgrounds checks on gun sales
WASHINGTON — Texas is leading a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday to block new rules aimed at expanding the number of firearms transactions that require a background check on buyers.
“Yet again, Joe Biden is weaponizing the federal bureaucracy to rip up the Constitution and destroy our citizens’ Second Amendment rights,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a news release announcing the lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah joined Texas as plaintiffs in the challenge, along with gun rights groups.
Federally licensed gun dealers are required by law to search national databases to determine if prospective buyers are prohibited from purchasing firearms.
Democrats have pushed for years to expand who is required to conduct those background checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic violence offenders and others legally barred from buying them.
The White House, touting the new rules as part of the most significant expansion of gun-safety regulations in more than 30 years, says the change will save lives by reducing the number of firearms sold without background checks.
“I’ve spent hours with families who’ve lost loved ones to gun violence,” Biden said when the rules were announced. “They all have the same message: ‘Do something.’ Today, my administration is taking action to make sure fewer guns are sold without background checks.”
Critics say the rules will be used to criminalize routine firearm transactions between neighbors and family members.
The new rules flow from bipartisan 2022 legislation adopted in the wake of several high-profile mass shootings that year, including the attack on Robb Elementary School in Uvalde that left 19 children and two teachers dead.
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-texas, received significant criticism from conservatives for his role as the primary Republican negotiator, hammering out compromises on the bill with U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-conn.
Cornyn stands by his support for the law but has criticized the new ATF rules as an overreach far beyond what Congress intended.
The law changed the definition of what type of firearms sellers are required to obtain a license and run background checks on buyers. Instead of applying to dealers “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit,” the law covers dealers who intend “to predominantly earn a profit.”
As the federal agency responsible for regulating gun sales, the ATF interpreted the change to cover sales at gun shows, flea markets, gun ranges, by mail order or over the internet.
Those rules go far beyond the language of the law, according to the lawsuit, which asks the court to strike down the new rule.
Paxton has sued the Biden administration over a litany of policies, including a lawsuit filed Monday seeking to block extending Title IX protections to gender identity and sexual orientation.
As with the Title IX lawsuit and a half-dozen other challenges by Paxton’s office, the ATF petition was filed in Amarillo, a single-judge division. That means it’s almost certain to be heard by Matthew Kacsmaryk, a federal district judge with socially conservative views who was appointed by former President Donald Trump.
Cornyn said in an interview Wednesday he has no regrets about crafting the new law, saying it has saved many lives without slowing down the process of legal gun purchases.
“We just need to get it right, and the ATF has far overstepped congressional intent,” Cornyn said.
He said negotiations over the bill were difficult because Democrats were pushing for a broader expansion on background checks, while Republicans were trying to keep the language focused on those in the business of buying and selling firearms while protecting casual sellers engaged in informal exchanges.
“The ATF has taken this far beyond what it should,” Cornyn said. “I’m glad that the lawsuit has been filed.”
Cornyn also said he plans to introduce legislation eliminating the ATF rules change.
Murphy, the Democratic senator who helped negotiate the law, said the rules are consistent with the law’s intent.
“The language change is clearly intentional to capture individuals who are not full-time sellers but are making significant profits,” Murphy said. “The rule is totally right-sized to the letter of the law and the spirit of law.”