On May 1, 2024, more than 20 states including the state of Tennessee sued the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in federal court in Arkansas in which they claimed that the ATF’s new “engaged in business” rule was void. The lead plaintiff in the litigation was the state of Kansas. The states sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit ATF’s enforcement on this new rule.

On Saturday, May 23, 2024, Federal District Judge James M. Moody Jr., issued a ruling in which he found that the state of Arkansas, although a party, had asserted that the ATF’s enforcement of the rule against in Arkansas would result “in a decrease in state tax revenue” which is what many other states argued as well. 

However, the Court stated that it found “that these injuries are vague and speculative and the State of Arkansas has not shown that the injuries are “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.” Clapper at 409. … It is Arkansas’s burden to establish standing.” But the Court found that Arkansas did not carry that burden and dismissed its claims against the ATF “without prejudice.”

As to the remaining states and claims, the Court transferred the case to the District Court of Texas. 

The Court stated “[h]aving found that the State of Arkansas does not have standing to proceed in this action,venue is improper in this Court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406, the Court hereby transfers this case to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas where venue appears to be proper. The Clerk of the Court is requested to transfer the case immediately. I decline to make any findings on the merits of the case and leave that to the sound judgment of the District Court of Kansas.”

The State of Tennessee is a co-plaintiff in the case and remains one since the Arkansas court did not address the standing of any plaintiff other than the State of Arkansas.

At this time, there is no injunction against the ATF’s “engaged in business” rule that has been issued in this action nor any in other court that would protect the rights of Tennesseans. The only exception is believed to be the temporary restraining order that was issued in the Northern District of Texas and which protects those individuals who might reside in Tennessee and who are also members of the Tennessee Firearms Association, Gun Owners of America and/or the Virginia Citizens Defense League.