Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News, told viewers that a federal judge in Alabama just shut the door on fifteen states that tried to jump into a key lawsuit over President Biden’s ATF “Engaged in the Business” rule. According to Yanis, the states wanted to defend the rule themselves because they didn’t trust the new administration to carry it across the finish line. But the court said no and kept the case on its fast track. The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Corey L. Maze in the Northern District of Alabama.
The Lawsuit at the Center of It All
Yanis explained that the case is Butler v. Bondi, brought by two individual gun owners – Don Butler and David Glidewell – alongside the NRA. Their claim is simple: the ATF’s “Final Rule” rewrites federal law by stretching the meaning of who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms, pushing ordinary people toward federal dealer licensing they’ve never needed. Court filings show the lawsuit has been moving quickly since late 2024, with summary judgment briefing already in play.
What the ATF Rule Tries to Do
As Yanis summarized, the ATF’s April 2024 rule attempts to “clarify” when someone must hold a Federal Firearms License. In practice, he argued, it can sweep in folks who occasionally trade or sell from a personal collection. The court record describes the rule as issued “at the direction of President Biden” to broaden the definition of “engaged in the business,” which is why gun owners and the NRA are challenging it under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution.
Why Fifteen States Tried to Jump In
Yanis said the states, blue-leaning jurisdictions, moved to intervene after the 2024 election, arguing the incoming administration might not defend the Biden-era rule. He noted they even referenced campaign statements and a news report predicting reversals. The judge’s order confirms the states’ theory: they feared a shift after inauguration and filed right before a major deadline, hoping to take a seat at counsel table to keep the rule alive.
The Court’s First Reason: You Waited Too Long
The first strike against the states was timing. Yanis told viewers the judge said they waited until mid-January, on the eve of a key filing, to seek intervention, even though they knew about the election result in early November. The order stresses that dropping fifteen new parties into a case already at the summary-judgment stage would blow up the schedule the court promised the plaintiffs when it denied a preliminary injunction back in November 2024. In short: late motion, real delay, motion denied.
The Second Reason: No Legally Protectable Interest
Yanis also highlighted how the court didn’t buy the states’ claimed interests – like general public safety or potential cost savings from tracing guns. The order labels those theories speculative and not the kind of concrete, legally protectable interest that Rule 24 requires. A generalized preference for a policy outcome isn’t enough to wedge new parties into an APA case about a federal regulation.
The Third Reason: DOJ Is Already Defending the Rule
Here’s the part that raised eyebrows in Yanis’s audience: the judge said the Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, is actively defending the rule. He pointed to a 70-page brief filed under the prior administration and a reply defending the rule under the current one. Because DOJ and the would-be intervenor states share the “same ultimate objective” – upholding the rule – the court presumed the states’ interests are already adequately represented. That undercut the states’ main pitch to join the fight. Reporting from The Reload captured the same theme: the court saw no retreat by DOJ on this rule.
Yanis’s Take: A Clean Shot for the Plaintiffs
Yanis framed the order as a big procedural win for gun owners. In his words, if those states had been allowed in, they could have buried the case in motions and appeals for years – classic delay tactics that keep a contested rule alive. By slamming that door, Judge Maze kept the path clear for Butler, Glidewell, and the NRA to get a real answer on whether ATF can stretch statutes by rulemaking and threaten ordinary collectors with dealer requirements.
Where the Rule Stands Right Now
Yanis stressed that the rule is still in effect – this order didn’t strike it down. The judge also noted that while the administration has ordered a review of Biden-era gun rules, the government hasn’t said when that review ends or what it will do. So, for now, the “engaged in the business” rule remains on the books while the court decides the merits. That’s why the intervention ruling matters: it keeps the case from getting bogged down while the rule continues to operate.
Why This Matters Beyond One Courtroom
My read lines up with Yanis here: this is a classic administrative-law moment. The question isn’t only the Second Amendment; it’s who gets to change the meaning of federal law – Congress through statutes, or agencies through rules. By refusing to add fifteen more lawyers to the defense, the court protected speed and clarity. That helps everyone: plaintiffs get their day; the public gets an answer; and if the rule is legal, it survives on the merits rather than on delay.
The States Yanis Says Tried to Intervene
Yanis told viewers the coalition included New Jersey, California, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Vermont. He said they argued they couldn’t trust federal defendants to fight hard enough, but the judge wasn’t persuaded. What mattered to the court was the case record: DOJ had already filed extensive briefs to defend the ATF rule, and adding more parties would only slow the ruling the court promised.
The Case’s Procedural Posture – Fast and Focused
As Yanis reminded the audience, the judge denied a preliminary injunction back on November 4, 2024, but promised a quick merits schedule. The docket shows summary-judgment briefs filed by both sides soon after, with the states’ late motion coming on the eve of a plaintiff filing. The court kept its word to move swiftly and refused to let a last-minute intervention derail that plan. Now the court must answer the core question: did ATF exceed its authority when it broadened who must be licensed as a dealer?
Process Over Power
To me, the most interesting part is the court’s quiet defense of process. If agencies can stretch criminal exposure by rule, courts should reach that question cleanly, not after years of procedural mud. Denying intervention protects the integrity of the review. If the rule stands, it will be because the statute truly allows it. If not, the fix will come from Congress or the courts – not from piling on extra defenders to stall the clock.
A Win That Keeps the Fight Alive
Yanis called this a solid win, and I agree – but it’s a win about momentum. The order doesn’t decide the Second Amendment claim or the APA claim; it just stops a detour. For gun owners who fear ordinary trades could be treated as dealer activity, a fast ruling matters. For states that favor tighter definitions, a fast ruling matters too. Clarity is good law. However this comes out, the country needs a clear answer on the limits of ATF’s power.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
