The Biden-Harris administration’s executive orders on gun control have sparked discussions about the implications for Second Amendment rights. The measures, which reinterpret existing laws, allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to classify individuals as “dealers involved in the business of buying and selling firearms” even if they offer to buy or sell a single gun.
Critics argue that this policy leads to federal prosecution expenses for individuals who may not complete a sale but are nonetheless considered gun dealers. Notably, the ATF has labeled the Washington DC police department as a “rogue firearms dealer.”
President Donald J. Trump has the potential to overturn these executive orders. However, there is concern that future administrations could reinstate them. An alternative strategy suggested involves using the administrative state to challenge these orders through the judicial system.
This approach would require broad claims by the ATF under Biden’s orders, followed by legal challenges in pro-rights federal district courts. If successful, these cases could reach the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), potentially leading to a nationwide ruling against such executive orders.
The proposed method aims for long-term change rather than temporary reversals. While it might take years for court decisions to be finalized, supporters believe this could prevent similar actions by future administrations.
Rob Morse discusses these issues on his SlowFacts blog and hosts related podcasts focused on gun rights advocacy.
