On Thursday we talked about an attempt by more than a dozen Democratic attorneys general to become defendants in a lawsuit challenging the ATF's "engaged in the business rule". While the federal judge overseeing that litigation hasn't yet ruled on the AG's motion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has smacked down a similar effort in a lawsuit seeking to undo the ATF's classification of forced reset triggers as machine guns

The ATF's edict is being challenged by the National Association of Gun Rights, and as in the "engaged in the business" litigation, the coalition of anti-2A attorneys general (comprised of the AGs in New Jersey, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington recently sought to become defendants in the case alongside the Department of Justice. 

The AGs contended that the ATF rule likely won't be defended by the DOJ once Donald Trump is sworn in, and since the states they represent have a "profound interest" in the outcome of the lawsuit they should be allowed to defend the ATF rule directly and not merely through amicus briefs. 

On Thursday the Fifth Circuit issued its short and succinct answere to the AGs request. 

UPDATE: The Fifth Circuit has DENIED a motion by anti-gun states to intervene in NAGR's lawsuit challenging the reclassification of FRTs as machine guns https://t.co/7koyBh1xP1 pic.twitter.com/HJJkYqKG9M

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) January 16, 2025

The Fifth Circuit panel hearing NAGR v. Garland didn't elaborate on the reason for the denial, but as I mentioned yesterday when discussing the "engaged in the business" rule, there are at least two things working against the gun-grabbing AGs. 

The first is that while these AGs might want to see the ATF rule stay in place, they're not responsible for enforcing it, which makes them nothing more than interested parties. 

As far as the Fifth Circuit panel is confirmed, that's really all that's needed to reject the request. But there's the fact that the ATF rule will hopefully be mooted soon after Donald Trump is sworn in. Trump has vowed to undo every one of Joe Biden's executive actions on guns, and even before the rule is formally rescinded he can direct the acting head of the ATF to reverse its specific finding that the FRT15 and Wide Open Trigger are "machine guns". For that matter, Trump could tell acting ATF Director Marvin Richardson to stop treating any and all forced reset triggers as machine guns. 

Just like the anti-gun AGs desire to intervene in the "engaged in the business" lawsuit, their plea to become direct defendants in NAGR v. Garland amounts to nothing more than page after page of "this isn't fair!" couched in legalese, and the Fifth Circuit was right to summarily reject the request. The AGs can now take their appeal to the Supreme Court, but I doubt they'll fare any better with a majority of justices than they did in the appellate courts. This is a federal rule, and the federal government should be its primary defender. The new administration has the authority to conclude that the new rule isn't worth defending, and if that's what Trump decides there's not much the anti-2A attorneys general can do about it. 

.