Biden administration urges judge to toss Florida challenge to new federal gun rule
TALLAHASSEE — The Biden administration this week urged a judge to toss out a Florida lawsuit challenging a new federal rule that will require more gun sellers to be licensed and run background checks on buyers.
U.S. Department of Justice attorneys Monday filed a 22-page motion in federal court in Tampa arguing that Florida does not have legal standing to challenge the rule, which was finalized in April by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody filed the lawsuit on May 1, in part alleging that the rule will force the state to handle a "surge" in requests for background checks. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducts checks.
But in the motion, Justice Department attorneys described such potential effects as "self-inflicted" because the FBI could do the background checks for the state. It said Florida "has made the voluntary decision to add a layer of bureaucracy" and, as a result, does not have standing to challenge the rule.
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation operates the federal firearms background check system and offers full background check services to states for free," the motion said. "The majority of states rely on the FBI to conduct background checks, and those states incur no costs or burdens relating to background checks. The federal government has not forced Florida to conduct background checks; Florida has voluntarily taken on that burden."
Florida and other Republican-led states have filed lawsuits challenging the rule, which is an outgrowth of a 2022 federal law, known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, that made changes to the longstanding background-check system. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives developed the rule to carry out the law.
New rule
When the rule was finalized, the Biden administration said it was designed to close "loopholes" in the system that require licensed gun dealers to run background checks. An overview posted on the White House website said "A growing number of unlicensed sellers continue to sell firearms for profit to complete strangers they meet at gun shows and online marketplaces, which has been a critical gap in the background check laws."
In part, the rule changed the definition of being "engaged in the business" as a firearms dealer who needs to be licensed, according to Monday's motion. The revised definition applies to a "person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. The term shall not include 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 the person's personal collection of firearms."
Justice Department attorneys argued in the motion that the definition closely tracks the 2022 law. But Florida's lawsuit said the rule goes "far beyond" the law and violates what is known as the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
As an example, the lawsuit partially quoted federal law and said the rule "obliterates the exception to the definition of 'dealer' for '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.'"
"Many gun owners buy and then resell firearms," the lawsuit said. "Sometimes they do so only to add to their personal collection. … (However), sometimes increasing the value of that collection is one of their motives — just as collectors of other items hope their collections will gain value and potentially be resold for a profit."
Standing is an initial threshold that judges consider in whether lawsuits should move forward. While Monday's motion focused on the standing issue, Justice Department attorneys also called the state's arguments about the Administrative Procedure Act "meritless."
The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell, who had not scheduled a hearing as of Wednesday morning, according to an online court docket.
