Category: Bureaucraps

Government Throws in Towel on Defending Post Office Gun Ban

The U.S. Justice Department this week signaled it would no longer defend against a challenge to the federal ban on firearm possession, storage, and carry at U.S. Post Offices.

The government filed a motion with the U.S. Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of FPC v. Blanche, a gun rights group’s victory against the post office gun ban. A lower court in Oct. 2025 found the ban unconstitutional, citing that the first mail service in America was established in 1639, but the USPS waited until 1972 to specifically prohibit firearms on postal property.

Until this week, the government was still doggedly standing by the ban on appeal.

“The Trump DOJ spent far too long defending an immoral and unconstitutional ban that treated peaceable Americans like criminals,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in a statement. “Now, after losing on the merits and failing to gut the relief protecting our members, the government is finally waving the white flag. Good.”

For now, the victory in FPC v. Blanche protects members of the FPC and the Second Amendment Foundation, pending further challenges, rulings, and possible repeal of the ban by the USPS.

No Tax, No Excuse: NFA Suppressor and SBR Registry Gun Rights Next Target

New filings argue that three Supreme Court decisions have stripped away the government’s excuses for maintaining a zero-tax federal gun registry. The tax is gone. The registry remains.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have opened a coordinated, three-court attack on the National Firearms Act registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled firearms. Supplemental filings in Brown v. ATF, Jensen v ATF, and Roberts v. ATF argue that three recent Supreme Court decisions leave the federal government with neither a valid taxing-power excuse nor an easy escape from the Second Amendment.

The Jensen filing is part of the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF litigation in Texas, where Silencer Shop Foundation and allied plaintiffs are pursuing a parallel challenge to the NFA registry.

Congress Zeroed the NFA Tax but Kept the Registry

Congress reduced the NFA making and transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” to zero in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Washington, however, kept the paperwork, fingerprints, registration, prior approval, and felony penalties.

That creates the question now confronting federal courts: If the registry existed to collect a tax, what constitutional authority supports it when Congress no longer collects that tax?

SAF says the Supreme Court’s decision in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections & Public Safety reinforces the answer: none. Congress cannot stretch the Necessary and Proper Clause into an independent police power, then impose a burdensome registration scheme on Americans who owe no tax.

The Jensen filing puts the point bluntly. Maintaining registration on untaxed citizens, plaintiffs argue, would permit Congress “to regulate in minute detail the activities of untaxed Americans.”

That should concern every gun owner. A federal agency should not be able to preserve a national weapons database merely because the database once accompanied a tax.

Supreme Court Rulings Strengthen the Second Amendment Challenge

The Second Amendment attack may be even more consequential. SAF argues that Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani require courts to apply the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test instead of inventing special exemptions for NFA regulations.

According to the filing, a suppressed firearm is a form of an arm, while a short-barreled rifle is “indisputably” a form of an arm. Once protected conduct is implicated, the government bears the burden of proving that its restriction is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The filing also takes direct aim at the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Peterson, which treated NFA registration as comparable to a presumptively lawful shall-issue licensing system. The plaintiffs contend that Wolford “leaves no room for a carveout” from the required Second Amendment analysis and therefore abrogates Peterson on that point.

That licensing comparison was always strained. Licensing evaluates whether a person is legally disqualified. Registration creates a government record of particular weapons and their owners. As the Jensen filing explains, “Registration, by contrast, focuses on tracking firearms and who owns them.”

Three NFA Lawsuits Target the ATF Registry

In a press release, SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said: “When the Supreme Court rightly ruled in favor of Landor, Wolford, and Hemani, the precedent set had a direct impact on SAF’s ongoing NFA challenges.

With those rulings in hand, we are now able to better explain to the courts exactly why the remaining registration scheme left in the NFA lacks constitutional authority and is a direct violation of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. We are hopeful these cases will move expeditiously and rightfully restore the full constitutional rights of gun owners across the nation.”

“There is no doubt the Supreme Court’s rulings this past term have direct bearing on our current challenges to the NFA’s remaining registration scheme,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

“The relevant district courts should recognize the rulings for what they are – binding precedent that bolsters SAF’s arguments in these three cases.

The One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the tax for suppressors and short-barreled firearms, and it’s now time to remove the registration burden so citizens can exercise their right to keep and bear arms without fear of being placed on some government list.”

The burden is now where Bruen put it: on the government. ATF must identify a historical analogue, not wave at modern licensing practices and demand judicial deference. The government now faces a problem it cannot solve with slogans about licensing or administrative convenience.

No tax means no taxing-power excuse. Protected arms mean the Second Amendment applies. And a government list of firearms and their owners is exactly what it looks like: registration.

They’re still bureaucrap

NYT Sounds The Alarm on the ‘Drastic Retrenchment’ Going On at ATF.

Proponents of the changes [to ATF rules] point out that some of the reversals would return regulations to what they were only a few years ago, before President Joseph R. Biden took office. After a series of deadly mass shootings, Mr. Biden signed into law gun control measures, ending nearly three decades of gridlock over whether and how to regulate firearms.

The divisiveness illustrates the complicated landscape for gun policy.

“With the Biden regulations that we got and put in place, we advanced the ball,” said Kris Brown, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the country’s biggest gun control organizations.

But the Trump administration’s approach “takes us back 100 years,” she said. “It’s really decimating A.T.F.’s ability to regulate this industry.”

A White House official said the administration’s policies reflected Mr. Trump’s commitment to ensuring that Americans could exercise their Second Amendment rights, accusing the Biden administration of bypassing Congress and using the regulatory process to restrict gun rights. …

Since his first run for office, Mr. Trump has positioned himself as an ardent supporter of gun rights. In the run-up to the 2024 election, he vowed to be “the best friend gun owners have ever had in the White House.” Days after being inaugurated, he signed an executive order instructing the attorney general to scrutinize what he described as “ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.”

— Aishvarya Kavi in Trump Administration Rolls Back Dozens of Gun Regulations

 

GOA Has Major Problem With New Rules From ATF

The ATF is changing rules aplenty, and they’re a massive departure from years gone by, when everyone in leadership there was as anti-gun as they came. It’s almost universally good news for us, to say the least.

Yes, I’m happy overall with where things are headed.

However, things aren’t perfect, and Gun Owners of America is a little less than pleased by what we’re seeing.

In particular, they have one problem, but it’s kind of a big one.

The pro-gun rights group Gun Owners of America is calling out the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives over what GOA calls a “fake rollback” of the Biden Administration’s “Engaged in the Business” rule.

GOA has been battling the Trump Administration Department of Justice over the rule ever since President Donald Trump took office for his second term. And while it looked like the DOJ had decided to do away with the rule in recent proposed rulemaking, GOA says there’s more to the story.

GOA: The replacement rule keeps the Biden framework in place

“That rule tried to twist the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to impose backdoor universal background checks by redefining who counts as a ‘dealer,’” GOA said in a recent news release on the rule. “Now, ATF has proposed a replacement rule that claims to ‘rescind’ the Biden rule, but in reality keeps key parts of its legal framework in place and leaves gun owners exposed.”

Your firearms list could still be used against you

“ATF still treats everyday behavior by gun owners as suspicious: keeping a simple list of your firearms, reselling the same model within a short window, or even just offering to sell a firearm can be used as evidence that you are ‘engaged in the business’ without a license,” GOA explained in the release. “The agency continues to push the idea that intent alone can be enough evidence to prosecute law-abiding gun owners as illegal firearms traffickers, despite the court’s ruling and the clear limits Congress placed in law.”

Consequently, GOA said, the ATF cannot keep the Biden-era “Engaged in the Business” framework on the books.

“The rule must be rescinded in its entirety,” GOA wrote.

I mean, that’s fair.

Have you ever had a turn of your fortunes in a short period of time? One month, you’re doing great, then a couple of months later, everything went to crap?

I suspect most of you have to some degree or another.

One of the problems with this “engaged in the business” rule is that it’s too easy to take someone who is in this kind of situation, who bought a gun in March, then needs money for rent in June, and sells the gun, could be considered an illegal dealer when that’s not what’s happening.

Literally no one would say that about someone who bought a car, then sold it in a short window of time. They’re not an unlicensed car dealer or anything. That’s true of any other physical product out there. People buy, then sell later on, and if money gets tight, they’re going to do it a bit quicker than they might otherwise.

The idea that selling a firearm could get you hammered as an illegal dealer is stupid, and it’s stupid even if it’s not about money getting tight. If I buy a product, it’s mine. I should be able to do what I want with it so long as no one else is endangered by my actions. That includes selling my property because I want to sell it.

It might be different if I’m selling dozens of guns in that short window, but the problem with the rule, as I understand it, and as GOA understands it, is that it doesn’t differentiate between one sale and a hundred. That’s a big problem.

For the most part, I like the new rules. Leaving this, however, isn’t one of them.

 The Real Reason Why Everytown is So Angry About the ATF’s 34 Proposed Rule Changes.

This is outrageous. I’ve been wanting a hit piece like this written about me since forever, and have practically lobbied for one, but ATF’s chief counsel, Robert Leider, gets one for his all too sensible rule reform package. It’s all just staggeringly unfair.

I considered boycotting Everytown’s Smoking Gun anti-gun agitprop operation because of this affront, but I know they rely on me for a decent chunk of their traffic and I can’t just put people out of work like that, even if their entire job is to eliminate my gun rights (and yours, too).

I’m a bloodthirsty gun nut lawyer, not a monster after all. They start like this . . .

If you’ve read any of Leider’s pre-ATF scholarship, you’d know he’s a Second Amendment true believer, not some gun industry lapdog. The Smoking Gun naturally frames Leider’s rules reforms as “placating the gun industry” because that suits them more than the truth does. And the truth is that millions of Americans — Leider included — insist on their Second Amendment rights.

I did a full thread on that ProPublica article on the administration allegedly easing up on gun trafficking, so I won’t go into detail on it here. Suffice it to say, the ATF’s “zero tolerance” campaign was about harassing gun dealers for paperwork errors, not catching dealers who were intentionally breaking the law.

No, that’s not at all what he said in the interview. What he was explaining was that paperwork errors often arise from confusing or unneeded required information. So by simplifying the form, fewer errors will happen due to confusion and never become a problem in the first place. Intentional violations would still be punished.

By the logic of this idiotic article, we should make voter registration forms more confusing on purpose, and then prosecute those who make an honest error for voter fraud.

You could do this with literally any time frame. California has a ten-day waiting period. Someone could  become prohibited on day nine and pick up their gun the next day. Is Smoking Gun really contending any significant number of prohibited people would be stopped by a 30-day window, but would have made it through a 60-day window? There’s no statistical backing for that contention.

Everytown asserts that the current form 4473 is a useful tool to catch prohibited people. You know, prohibited people like those who walk into a gun store and say, “Why yes, I’m a human trafficker, give me my gun now, please.” But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, these are the same dipshits who think criminals pay attention to “no guns” signs.

Note that we have already long been doing this form of sales for suppressors. And suppressors are almost never used in crimes.

By the end, we get to what Everytown is actually mad about: the continuing normalization and mainstreaming of firearms purchases.

The ATF’s changes would be a step back towards what the process had been for most of our history until the gun control interregnum of the last 60 years or so when authoritarian anti-gunners had the upper hand. They’re now losing the argument outside the minority of states they control and they’re big mad about it.

I guess they’ll just have to learn to live with that.

Kostas Moros is Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation.

Brady Hopping Mad That Feds Won’t Violate Federal Law to Further Their Name-And-Shame Campaign.

The Brady gun control group is hopping mad that their “name-and-shame” charade no longer enjoys government support. They’re so mad, in fact, the group is suing to force the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to violate federal law, risk law enforcement safety and release data so they can twist a media narrative to falsely accuse firearm retailers for the criminal misuse of firearms.

Brady filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force the DOJ and ATF to answer their Freedom of Information Act request for information surrounding the Demand Letter 2 Program. That program, begun during the antigun Clinton administration, requires firearm retailers to provide additional information to the ATF when 25 or more firearms are traced back to them subsequent to the recovery at a crime scene and the time from retail sale to trace is three years or less (what ATF calls “time-to-crime”) in a calendar year.

This information is protected from public release, and for good reason. The Tiahrt rider, which has been reauthorized by Congress since it was passed in 2003, restricts public access to sensitive, law enforcement-only firearm tracing data. This restriction is supported by Congress, ATF and law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police because it secures sensitive tracing information which would jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations and put the lives of law enforcement officers, cooperating retailers and witnesses at risk.

Brady would rather have their media “name-and-shame” narrative instead of protecting the lives of law enforcement investigating illegal firearm trafficking cases.

Protecting Against Abuse, Law Enforcement Lives

Former ATF Acting Director Michael Sullivan wrote of the importance of safeguarding firearm trace data and not using this information as a political football.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
The U.S. Department of Justice and the ATF itself need to take a close, serious look at what they did to Patrick Tate Adamiak or it will happen again, especially when there’s another Dem calling the shots at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Once was enough.

Bottom line: If the ATF doesn’t hold itself fully accountable, we need to ask whether we even need the ATF.

What Should Happen to ATF Agents Who Lied to Put a Man in Prison for 20 Years?

Patrick Tate Adamiak is starting his fourth year of a 20-year federal prison sentence, even though he broke no law and committed no crime. That sad fact leads almost every discussion about the 31-year-old who had no prior criminal history. The public’s attention has been rightfully focused on freeing him from his undeserved incarceration, not on the ATF agents who wrongfully put him in a prison cell for two decades.<

As most of you know, Joe Biden’s ATF lied about what their confidential informant had purchased from Adamiak. They lied again to obtain a search warrant of Adamiak’s property. They found nothing illegal while executing their search warrant, so they lied yet again about the legal items they found in order to obtain a conviction.

These untruths, in my humble opinion, were made for three reasons: in order to stave off any claim that Adamiak’s civil rights were violated, to shield the ATF agents from how poorly they conducted the investigation, and to keep secret the fact that they simply can’t work a confidential informant.  

Continue reading “”

Is ATF’s ‘Sporting Purposes’ Test A Dead Infringement Walking?

One of the oldest regulations that has impacted the ability of law-abiding gun owners to purchase firearms of their choice could be off the books soon.

During an April 29 press conference announcing that three major regulations imposed by the Biden administration were slated to be axed, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said that the Justice Department was also reviewing the “sporting purposes” test regulations initially implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the Gun Control Act of 1968. For about 20 years, the regulation was primarily used to restrict handgun imports through the so-called “factoring criteria” outlined on Form 4590 before it was used to target modern semiautomatic rifles that anti-Second Amendment groups labeled as “assault weapons” following a 1989 mass shooting in Stockton, California.

“ATF is studying right now to determine which rifles are generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes,” Blanche said during the press conference. “That’s going to be an ongoing effort over the next several months and we’re going to see that through.”

In 1989, the ATF ultimately blocked the importation of semiautomatic rifles that bore a superficial resemblance to military-issue assault rifles like the AK-47, FN FAL, Heckler and Koch G3 and the Steyr AUG. Nine years later, in 1998, the agency tightened the ban to include rifles capable of accepting standard magazines used in the military-issue rifles and their semi-automatic-only clones.

Anti-Second Amendment agitators and organizations often use the term “assault weapons” in order to gain support for banning semi-automatic firearms with features that give them a cosmetic similarity to firearms capable of fully-automatic operation. Fully-automatic firearms are already heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

However, that test may not be around for long in light of the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. In 2008, 40 years after the “sporting purposes” test was used to restrict firearms imports, the high court issued its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia, in which it declared that self-defense is a lawful purpose for owning a firearm.

“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” former Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion. “The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.”

The Supreme Court has since struck down other laws on Second Amendment grounds in McDonald v. Chicago and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Constitutional attorney Stephen Halbrook, one of the foremost Second Amendment scholars, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that those rulings could be a death knell for the “sporting purposes” test, which was used to ban the importation of modern semiautomatic rifles in the late 1980s and 1990s.

“Limitation of the import of firearms to those the government decides are particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes violates the Second Amendment,” Halbrook said. “In 1989 and again in 1998, the government arbitrarily decided that firearms previously considered sporting were no longer sporting.”

Halbrook also outlined how the ban could be taken down via litigation.

“A licensed importer would apply to ATF to import several specific semiauto rifles and include documents in support demonstrating that they are (per Heller) in common use for lawful purposes, including self-defense,” Halbrook told the DCNF. “After the permit is denied, the importer and persons wishing to purchase the rifles would be plaintiffs in a civil suit claiming denial of Second Amendment rights.”

ATF and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment from the DCNF.

Second Amendment Must be Safeguarded Against Overreach

Hearing Wrap Up: Second Amendment Must be Safeguarded Against Overreach

House Oversight Committee | May 14th, 2026

WASHINGTON—Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement held a hearing on “Privacy Protections & the Second Amendment: Examining ATF’s Relationship to the Tiahrt Amendment” During the hearing, members discussed the history and purpose of the Tiahrt Amendment and the consequences of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ prior failures to abide by it. The hearing also examined the ATF’s track record protecting Second Amendment rights.

Key Takeaways:

ATF has been working to rebuild trust after having a long history of failing to consistently uphold the Second Amendment and Americans’ liberties.

Robert Cekada, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified that “[Effective] law enforcement and respect for civil liberties are inseparable obligations, and that is why ATF has entered a new era of reform to rebuild trust with the industry, the federal firearms licensees, lawful gun owners and the public while still prioritizing our efforts on public safety. Some of the specific actions I have taken include establishing a senior industry partnership advisor position to address industry concerns and foster proactive engagement with the regulated community, revoking the enhanced regulatory enforcement policy, sometimes referred to as a zero tolerance policy, and replacing it with a new policy that emphasizes fairness and transparency while recognizing that FFLs are often the first line of defense against gun crime. And I also implemented regulations reforms last month, where ATF issued 34 notices of final and proposed rulemaking following the comprehensive review that was conducted in compliance with the executive order on protecting the second amendment rights, the aim is simpler, clearer regulations that do not compromise public safety.”

In recent years, ATF has violated the Tiahrt Amendment – which prevents ATF from sharing firearms trace data – by releasing protected data as part of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosures.

Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement Chairman Clay Higgins (R-La.) noted in his opening statement that “Despite Tiahrt’s obvious importance to police and public safety, recent history has shown that ATF has flagrantly disregarded the law. Some violations of Tiahrt have seemed unintentional, associated with accidental data disclosures while responding to FOIA requests. However, other violations clearly stem from the political and ideological opposition some ATF unelected bureaucrats have for the law. There are several glaring recent examples, particularly during the Biden Administration. To begin, the Biden ATF assisted gun control groups in creating a map of gun shops, including those owned by Members of Congress, by providing Tiahrt-protected data as part of a FOIA request. ATF’s release of this data was a clear violation of federal law and intended to help anti-Second Amendment groups.”
ATF under the Biden Administration undermined the Tiahrt Amendment by assisting gun control groups in creating a map of gun shops using trace data.
ATF also inadvertently released Tiahrt-protected data as part of an unrelated 2022 FOIA request.
Congress must examine ways to rein in ATF’s erroneous and inconsistent application of law to prevent infringement of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and to ensure safety, privacy, and fairness for all Americans.

Continue reading “”

ATF Releases Second Batch of Text for Proposed Rules

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has released the text of more than a dozen proposed rules, after releasing the first tranche earlier this week.

You can find the latest submissions to the Federal Register here. Among the drafts released today is the rule revising Non-Over-the-Counter Firearms Transaction Requirements. Based on the ATF’s summary of the proposed rule, there was a lot of speculation and excitement over the possibility that the ATF would be allowing in-state purchases of firearms to take place without having to visit an FFL to fill out the Form 4473 in person, and the good news for gun owners is that is indeed what the agency is intending.

Federal law permits federal firearms licensees (“FFLs”) to transfer firearms to a person residing in the same state but who does not appear in person. These are “non-over-the-counter” (“NOTC”) sales. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) proposes amending Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations on NOTC sales. These proposed changes would remove restrictions limiting this option to background check-exempt transfers. The proposed rule would permit FFLs to conduct NOTC transfers while complying with background check requirements and adds remote identity proofing and electronic notices to chief law enforcement officers.These changes would provide greater flexibility for individuals lawfully purchasing firearms.

Under the proposed rule, buyers would still have to go through a background check, but FFLs would be able to remotely verify their identity and conduct a NICS check without the buyer being physically present. Based on my reading of the rule, it sounds like gun owners would most likely have to use a service like ID.me as part of the ID verification process, along with FFLs confirming the buyer’s ID matches the identity on their online verification by physically examining those documents using remote videoconferencing software.

Again, this would only apply to in-state firearm transfers, so it wouldn’t lead to nationwide direct-to-consumer sales from gun manufacturers where firearms could be shipped directly from the gun maker to your home. It would also likely require those who want to purchase a firearm without visiting the seller in person to provide a third party with their identification, which some gun owners will undoubtably find to be overly intrusive.

Participating in the system is entirely optional, however. The proposed rule won’t impact anyone who prefers in-person transactions.

Another proposed rule worth mentioning here is the ATFs proposed revision of the definitions of “mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution.” As the agency argues in its proposal, the current definition of “mental defective” is overbroad because it “encompasses individuals who do not suffer from the kinds of mental disabilities that fell within the term… at the time the GCA was enacted.”

Specifically, the regulation —at least as the 1997 final rule has been interpreted — encompasses individuals who have narrow functional deficits, such as the inability only to manage financial benefits. Those with isolated functional deficits are not the kind of individuals who were understood to be mentally defective as that term was used in the GCA. Nor are such individuals the kind of irresponsible or dangerous persons who Congress sought to prohibit from possessing firearms under sections 922(g)(4) and (d)(4).

This would bring the ATF in line with Congress’s prohibition on the VA using the appointment of a fiduciary as reason to declare veterans prohibited persons unable to lawfully possess firearms. At the same time, the ATF wants to change the definition of “committed to a mental institution” by inserting the word “involuntary” to the current definition of ““[a] formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority.”

The current regulation states that the term “includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily” and “does not include . . . a voluntary admission to a mental institution.” 27 CFR 478.11. Accordingly, the position of ATF and the courts has long been that voluntary admissions of any kind do not qualify under the statute. Consequently, ATF is adding “involuntary” as a core part of the definition.

That’s a relatively minor change, but anything that helps to alleviate the concern that voluntarily seeking help with mental health will lead to the loss of our right to keep and bear arms is a good thing, in my opinion.

I haven’t had a chance to do a deep dive into the other rules that will impact gun owners, gun makers, and gun sellers, but what I’ve seen to date looks pretty good. However…

Again, I haven’t had a chance to read through this in detail, but based on Armed Joy’s take this should be a non-starter. I can understand why ATF would want to have a centralized system like this, but it would also be ripe for abuse and easy enough to turn into a gun registry, at least when it comes to who purchased firearms at retail or those subject to background checks for private gun transfers.

We’ll have 90 days to comment once the rules are officially published, and I hope that gun owners will weigh in on every one of the proposals. Whether you support or oppose a particular rule, make sure your voice is heard.

ATF Align Group

21F: Conforming Change for Approving a Making Application – FINAL RULE

ATF is issuing a final rule to formally codify in regulation the existing practice of conducting National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) checks as part of the National Firearms Act (NFA) approval process for individuals seeking to make NFA firearms. ATF already conducts these checks as part of its standard processing. This final rule aligns the regulatory text with existing statutory requirements and ATF’s current operational practice, ensuring the regulatory framework accurately reflects how background checks are being administered.

20-03D: Export Control Reform – Conforming References to Department of Commerce – FINAL RULE

ATF is issuing a final rule to make technical and administrative clarifying amendments to its regulations in 27 CFR parts 447 and 479, which control the import and export of firearms, ammunition, and defense articles under the Arms Export Control Act. These changes correspond to regulatory changes previously made by the departments of Commerce and State. The rule adds references to reflect that certain transactions now fall under Commerce’s export and temporary import jurisdiction. These changes respond to actions by the departments of Commerce and State to divide export and temporary import controls between those agencies. The rule also makes minor technical amendments for clarity. No substantive policy changes are made.

04P: Update to Proscribed Countries for Import Restrictions – NPRM

ATF is proposing to update the import restrictions applicable to certain countries under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The proposed rule would remove the existing, static list of proscribed countries from which ATF denies applications to permanently import defense articles and services, replacing it with a dynamic reference to the Department of State’s list of proscribed countries. This ensures ATF’s import restrictions remain current and consistent with State Department designations without requiring separate ATF rulemaking each time the list changes. The rule also proposes to remove the list of former Soviet countries from which ATF currently denies applications to permanently import most firearms and ammunition, retaining only the Russian Federation as a proscribed country of origin for these imports.

39P: Adding Component Definitions Under the Arms Export Control Act – NPRM

ATF is proposing to amend the language in its specialized subset of regulations under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) to align with Department of State terminology already in use in the United States Munitions List (USML). By aligning terminology used to describe defense articles, this technical update would reduce ambiguity for Federal Firearms Licensees, Federal Explosives Licensees, and defense industry stakeholders.

2006R-01: Implementing PATRIOT Act Improvements: Contraband Cigarettes and Smokeless – FINAL RULE

ATF is issuing a final rule implementing provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 related to trafficking in contraband cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The rule reduces the quantity threshold triggering jurisdiction under the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA) from more than 60,000 cigarettes to more than 10,000; extends CCTA coverage to contraband smokeless tobacco for the first time; expands recordkeeping requirements and the class of persons subject to them; imposes reporting requirements on persons engaged in delivery sales above specified thresholds; and requires that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco seized and forfeited under the CCTA be used in law enforcement operations or destroyed. The rule does not apply to electronic cigarettes or other vaping products.

45F: Changes to National Firearms Act Tax Remittance Provisions – FINAL RULE 

ATF is issuing a final rule to amend its National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations to reflect changes made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to reduce the tax remittance rate for certain NFA firearms. This final rule is necessary to align regulatory text with statutory requirements and implement the legal changes.

ATF Clarify Group

06P: Firearm Activities in Foreign Trade Zones, Customs-Bonded Warehouses – NPRM

ATF is proposing to amend the definition of “importation” in its Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations to create a parallel exclusion from import requirements for items brought into Customs Bonded Warehouses (CBWs), matching the exclusion that already exists for Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs). The proposal also removes a restriction that currently limits permissible Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) activities in FTZs and CBWs to storage only, expanding the range of lawful activities FFLs may conduct on items held in these facilities. Together, these changes reduce regulatory ambiguity for importers and licensees operating within international trade environments.

09P: Importing Dual-Use Frames, Receivers, or Barrels – NPRM

ATF is proposing to clarify that Federal Firearms Licensees may lawfully import firearm barrels and frames/receivers capable of being used on both sporting and non-sporting firearms provided that an identified sporting configuration for the barrel or frame/receiver exists at the time of importation. The proposed rule also clarifies that once lawfully imported, a dual-use barrel or frame/receiver may be incorporated into the assembly of a sporting, non-sporting, or NFA-regulated firearm, subject to compliance with all other applicable federal firearms laws.

10P: Importing Training Rounds – NPRM

ATF is proposing to formally clarify in regulation that ”training rounds” — including inert, marking, or simulated-projectile products used for training purposes — do not meet the statutory definition of “ammunition” under the Gun Control Act (GCA) and are therefore not regulated under the GCA or the Arms Export Control Act provided the round is not for a firearm. This codification provides regulatory certainty for importers, manufacturers, and law enforcement suppliers who produce, acquire, or distribute these products.

16P: Converting Temporary to Permanent Imports for Defense Articles – NPRM

ATF is proposing to create a formal administrative process through which a firearms importer may convert a temporarily imported firearm to permanent import status by submitting an ATF Form 6 application when a temporary import authorization has expired or is otherwise no longer operative. Under current regulations, importers whose temporary import authorization expires must re-export, permanently reimport, or destroy the firearm — options that impose significant cost and logistical burden. The proposed rule fills this regulatory gap with a streamlined conversion pathway while maintaining all applicable import controls.

17P: Allowing Makers to Adopt Certain Markings for National Firearms Act – NPRM

ATF is proposing to allow individuals who make National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms by altering existing firearms to adopt markings already applied by the original manufacturer rather than applying additional, redundant markings. Because the original importer and manufacturer’s serial number and markings are already required by statute and regulation, this proposal eliminates a duplicative regulatory requirement while ensuring NFA marking requirements are satisfied. ATF has previously accommodated this practice through individual variances; this proposed rule codifies that accommodation into regulation to provide consistent, clear guidance across the industry.

23P: Clarifying Delivery to a Common or Contract Carrier When Transporting Firearms – NPRM

ATF is proposing to clarify that, for purposes of the Gun Control Act’s  provisions governing the delivery of firearms and ammunition to common or contract carriers, a person traveling aboard a common or contract carrier while personally maintaining direct control over a firearm or ammunition does not constitute “delivery” of that firearm or ammunition to the carrier. This clarification addresses longstanding regulatory ambiguity regarding the obligations of law-abiding travelers who retain physical possession of a firearm during common carrier travel.

24P: Revising Definitions of “Adjudicated as a Mental Defective” and “Committed to a Mental Institution” – NPRM

ATF is proposing to modernize the regulatory definition of “mental defective” — the term used in the Gun Control Act to identify a category of persons prohibited from possessing firearms — to reflect current medical and legal standards. The proposed rule would refine the term “mental defective,” associating it with “intellectually disabled” and clarify that a person receiving assistance in only one functional area (such as financial management) would not, on that basis alone, be considered prohibited under this definition. The proposal also clarifies existing prohibitions. Specifically, individuals committed to a mental institution resulting from a determination that an individual is a danger to themselves or others or is found not guilty by reason of insanity, properly fall within the definition of “committed to a mental institution,” and not within the definition of “mental defective.”

25P: Clarifying Exceptions to the Brady Act Background Check Requirement – NPRM

ATF is proposing to clarify the regulatory standards that govern when a state-issued firearms permit qualifies as an alternative to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The proposed rule makes targeted regulatory adjustments to require confirmation that the state permit is both valid and unexpired and that the language of the state statute conforms with certain requirements established by Congress. The proposed rule provides clearer guidance for Federal Firearms Licensees operating in states where such permits are recognized.

33P: Selecting Biological Sex on ATF Forms  – NPRM

ATF is proposing to amend its regulations to clarify that, in response to questions about sex on ATF forms, individuals should select their biological sex. This refers to the individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female and does not include the concept of gender identity. These are clarifying amendments to align ATF’s regulatory forms with the President’s signed Executive Order 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government and do not alter any substantive eligibility criteria.

36P: Definition of Business Premises – NPRM

ATF is proposing to clarify the regulatory definition of ‘business premises’ for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to explicitly include properties that adjoin each other or that are adjacent to each other and share a common parking lot, sidewalk, or road. This clarification is intended to resolve regulatory ambiguity for licensees whose operations span multiple adjacent buildings or parcels and to provide a consistent, clear standard for FFL licensing determinations.

41P: Firearms Transactions and Straw Purchases – NPRM

ATF is proposing to amend its regulations to provide greater regulatory clarity around the federal prohibition on straw purchases. A straw purchase effectively hides the identity of the actual purchaser/ultimate recipient of the firearm and circumvents the regulatory requirements for a firearm transfer by forgoing background checks and impeding the ability of law enforcement to trace guns involved in the commission of a crime to the true purchaser/ultimate recipient. The proposed rule is intended to provide clearer guidance for licensees, including which transactions are not considered straw purchases, thereby supporting enforcement efforts against true straw purchases.

47P: Creating a Definition of “Willfully” for Firearms Violations – NPRM

ATF is proposing to formally define the term “willfully” in its implementing regulations as it applies to violations of the Gun Control Act, specifically in the context of ATF’s authority to suspend or revoke a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) license or impose civil penalties. The proposed definition would implement the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bryan v. United States, under which a person acts “willfully” when they know their conduct is unlawful, even if unaware of the specific statutory provision being violated.

ATF Reduce Burden Group

03P:  Interstate Transport and Temporary Export of National Firearms Act – NPRM

ATF is proposing to update the administrative process for transporting lawfully registered National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms within the United States. Under the proposal, individuals transporting NFA firearms for short-term purposes (365 days or fewer) would no longer be required to submit advance notice to ATF or await approval before departing. Individuals transporting NFA firearms for long-term purposes (more than 365 days) or permanent relocation would still submit notice but would not need to await ATF approval before transporting. This change to ATF Form 5320.20 (Form 20), per 27 CFR § 478.28, is intended to remove an unnecessary regulatory burden on law-abiding NFA firearm owners without affecting applicable federal, state, or local legal requirements.

13P: Joint Registration for Spouses under the National Firearms Act – NPRM

ATF is proposing to allow married couples to file a joint application as makers and/or transferees of NFA-regulated firearms. Under current regulations, spouses who wish to jointly possess an NFA firearm typically establish a legal trust to do so, a process that involves legal expense and administrative complexity. This proposal would allow both spouses to be registered jointly as possessors without creating a trust. Under a joint registration, the transfer of a firearm between spouses would not constitute a separate NFA transfer, reducing both administrative burden and cost for law-abiding NFA firearm owners.

15P: Removing CLEO Notification Under the National Firearms Act – NPRM

ATF is proposing to remove the requirement for an applicant to forward to the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of his or her locality a copy of their National Firearms Act (NFA) application to make or transfer a firearm as well as a copy of the Responsible Person Questionnaire (ATF Form 5320.23) required to be completed. The requirement to forward these documents to CLEOs has faced sustained legal challenges and has not achieved its intended public safety outcomes.

18P: Clarifying Interstate Transportation of Firearms under the Gun Control Act – NPRM

ATF is proposing to clarify regulations that govern the interstate transportation of firearms by lawful owners. The proposed rule formally recognizes that common, reasonably necessary activities during travel – including overnight stops, vehicle maintenance, refueling, emergency stops, and medical treatments – are considered as a necessary part of “transport,” and are therefore covered under the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act’s interstate transport protections. The proposed rule also updates requirements for transporting ammunition and firearm accessories and clarifies requirements for securing firearms during transit.

19P: Transferring Machine Guns Between Qualified Licensees – NPRM

ATF is proposing to simplify regulatory requirements for machine gun transfers between licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers in two specific, limited circumstances: 1) when demonstrating firearms to government entities, and 2) when a licensee is discontinuing a business. The proposed changes update implementing regulations to more closely align with the authority provided by the Gun Control Act and ATF parameters established in a January 2023 Open Letter to prevent misuse of the dealer sales sample exception. This reduces unnecessary regulatory complexity for these narrow commercial transactions while maintaining all applicable NFA requirements and federal licensing controls.

20P: Clarifying Special (Occupational) Tax Payments Per Business Activity – NPRM

ATF is proposing to clarify that Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) who pay the Special Occupational Taxpayer (SOT) fee under the National Firearms Act (NFA) owe one SOT per business activity (manufacturing, importing, or dealing) conducted at a given location, regardless of the number of Gun Control Act (GCA) licenses the FFL holds to carry out such activity at that location. This is a regulatory clarification designed to provide licensees with a clear, consistent understanding of their NFA tax obligation.

38F: Removing Triplicate Filing Requirement for Importing Plastic Explosives – FINAL RULE

ATF is amending its regulations governing the importation of plastic explosives to remove the requirement that importers submit the required attestation in triplicate when filing a Form 6 import application. ATF’s current processing procedures do not require three copies of this document, making the triplicate requirement an administrative artifact with no current operational function. This change eliminates redundant paperwork without affecting any substantive requirement governing the importation of plastic explosives.

ATF Modernize Group

01P: Revising Firearms Transaction Record, “Form 4473” – NPRM

ATF is proposing comprehensive updates to ATF Form 4473 (the Firearms Transaction Record required for all commercial firearms transfers) and its implementing regulations. The proposed rule would streamline identity and residency verification requirements for transferees; increase the time period for which a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check remains valid; clarify exceptions to background checks; permit electronic notice; and authorize the use of electronic forms, auto-population, and digital record attachments. The proposed rule would also incorporate ATF rulings and other guidance to align regulations with their authorizing statutory text as well as make minor technical revisions. These updates reflect modern business practices and are intended to reduce administrative burden on law-abiding citizens and businesses, while maintaining robust safeguards against unlawful transfers.

07P: Firearms Electronic Record-keeping – NPRM

ATF is proposing to formally authorize Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to generate, maintain, and store required records, including ATF Form 4473 and Acquisition and Disposition (A&D) records, using electronic record-keeping systems. ATF has already permitted this practice for many licensees through blanket and individual variance authorizations. This proposal codifies that authority into regulation, standardizing electronic recordkeeping across the industry, reducing the paperwork burden on licensees, and enhancing ATF’s ability to support timely firearm tracing and investigative efforts.

08P: Firearm Records Retention Periods – NPRM

ATF is proposing to replace the current practice of indefinite retention of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) records with definite retention periods for ATF Forms 4473 and Acquisition and Disposition (A&D) records. ATF is considering retention periods of either 20 or 30 years and is requesting public comment on the appropriate timeframe for certain records. ATF also proposes a 20 or 30 year retention period would be required for ATF’s Out-of-Business Records Center at the National Tracing Center. The proposal introduces a 90-day retention period for records related to private-party transfers and voluntary firearm handler checks. Additionally, the proposal includes a five-year retention period for multiple sales reports, pistols and revolvers (ATF Form 3310.4), theft loss reports (ATF Form 3310.11), and Forms 4473 where the transaction is initiated but not completed. This update reflects standard federal records management principles and provides regulatory clarity for licensees.

32D: Licensee “eZ Check” Verification for Transfers – DIRECT FINAL RULE

ATF is issuing a direct final rule to allow Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) transferring firearms to other FFLs to verify the transferee’s license using ATF’s publicly available ‘FFL eZ Check’ online system rather than requiring the transferor to obtain a certified paper copy of the transferee’s license. The rule also removes an outdated and now unnecessary ‘grace period’ provision that previously allowed transferors to continue to sell or transfer firearms to an FFL listed on a certified list from multi-licensed organizations for up to 45 days after the expiration date of that licensee’s specific license.

26P: Revising Non-Over-the-Counter Firearms Transaction Requirements – NPRM

ATF is proposing to amend regulations to authorize “Non-Over-the-Counter” (NOTC) firearm sales by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to residents of the same state. The proposed rule would allow FFLs to comply with the requirements of NOTC transactions originally implemented by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the requirements of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 more efficiently to include identification verification. This update is based on the recognition of increased options to securely verify photo identification of prospective purchasers, thereby providing greater flexibility while maintaining the rigorous identification verification and background checks required by the Brady Act.

ATF Repeal Group

ATF is proposing to formally rescind regulatory changes made in 2023 regarding firearms equipped with stabilizing braces. Multiple federal courts have found that the 2023 rule – as codified in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 – violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and the rule has been enjoined, stayed, or vacated across numerous jurisdictions. This proposal removes regulatory language that has been largely unenforceable, restoring the regulatory definitions to be consistent with the underlying statutory definitions.

27P: Revising Regs Defining “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms – NPRM

ATF is revising regulatory changes it made to the definition of the ‘engaged in the business’ of dealing in firearms. The rule rescinds certain provisions of the definition of ‘engaged in the business.’ The rescinded changes have not produced the anticipated outcomes in terms of Federal Firearms License applications, administrative licensing actions, civil forfeitures, or other anticipated enforcement metrics. The rule retains the definition of ‘engaged in the business’ as specifically revised and codified by Congress in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), ensuring that ATF’s regulatory definitions reflect the statutory language Congress enacted.

2024-01F: Revising Machine Gun Definition in Response to Supreme Court Decision – FINAL RULE

ATF is removing two sentences from its three regulatory definitions of “machine gun” that previously incorporated bump stocks into those definitions. This action responds directly to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill (2024), which held that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks do not satisfy the statutory definition of “machine gun” under the National Firearms Act. This rescission aligns ATF’s regulatory text with the statute and the Court’s binding legal interpretation.

28P: Removing Youth Handgun Safety Act Notice – NPRM

ATF is proposing to rescind 27 CFR § 478.103 to remove the requirement for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to post a sign (ATF I 5300.1) and provide a written notification (ATF I 5300.2) to each handgun purchaser regarding the Youth Handgun Safety Act. This 1998 regulation was established to inform purchasers of the 1994 Youth Handgun Safety Act. The proposed recission reduces an unnecessary burden on FFLs to inform purchasers about a law that has been in place for over 30 years and is now readily accessible.

ATF’s New Era of Reform

ATF launched a new era of reform in 2025 focused on a commitment to transparency, accountability, and partnership with the firearms industry, gun owners, and the public. Under new leadership, the agency has fundamentally changed course, moving toward a model built on trust and collaboration. This means working with federal firearms and explosives licensees as partners, reducing unnecessary burdens on law-abiding businesses and citizens, and ensuring ATF’s actions are grounded in clear statutory authority and focused on protecting American communities from violent crime driven by explosives, arson, and the illegal use of firearms.

Proposed Rulemakings

As part of ATF’s commitment, the agency recently published a landmark package of proposed rules representing the most significant modernization of ATF regulations in the agency’s history. These proposed rules take a common-sense approach to modernizing regulations and forms and reducing burden on law-abiding businesses and citizens alike. Public comments are encouraged during the open comment period for each rule.

34 Notices to be signed on April 29, 2026

New Era Actions Taken

  • Published a landmark package of proposed rules to streamline regulations and forms, reducing burden on dealers and gun owners alike.
  • Ended the Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement Policy that had targeted firearms dealers; FFLs whose licenses were revoked or surrendered under that policy may reapply under the new Administrative Action Policy.
  • Published a new Administrative Action Policy emphasizing firearm traceability and public safety while deemphasizing immaterial paperwork errors.
  • Revised processes for determining what inspection and compliance data is published.
  • Instituted a NICS alert policy restricting use of NICS alerts to federal firearms trafficking violations.
  • Established a Senior Industry Partnership Advisor/Liaison to address industry concerns and foster productive engagement.
  • Established a classifications board requiring all new firearm classifications to be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Director prior to publication.
  • Improved response time from the Firearms & Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) to FFL inquiries.
  • Reversed bans on the importation of non-lethal training ammunition and dual-use barrels.

What’s Next

This is an ongoing effort. ATF is committed to continued modernization and welcomes public input on proposed rules or outreach to our Senior Industry Partnership Advisor/Liaison.

DOJ and ATF Announce Regulatory Reforms to Reduce Burdens on Law-Abiding Gun Owners and Businesses

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is releasing this week 34 notices of final and proposed rulemaking following a comprehensive review of existing regulations conducted in compliance with Executive Order 14206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights. Consistent with ATF’s commitment in 2025 to rebuild trust with Federal Firearms and Explosives Licensees (FFLs/FELs) and industry stakeholders, this review included a consideration of industry and expert feedback and concerns. This landmark release is the first in a series of regulatory updates ATF plans to issue.

The resulting rules are an effort to reduce unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens and businesses while modernizing regulatory frameworks that no longer reflect current law, agency practice, or court precedent. The aim is simpler, clearer regulations that do not compromise ATF’s ability to perform its critical missions to protect American communities from violent crime.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” said U.S. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “This Department of Justice is ending the weaponization of federal authority against law-abiding gun owners. We will continue to vigorously defend their rights as the Constitution demands.”

Robert Cekada, who was recently confirmed by the U.S. Senate as ATF Director, said “ATF’s mission is to protect public safety and enforce the law – and these reforms reflect our commitment to doing that through regulations that are clear, legally sound, and narrowly tailored to that purpose.” He added, “Our enforcement focus from here on out is on willful violators and criminal actors, not inadvertent compliance issues by responsible owners and licensees.”

Summaries of the rules are available on atf.gov. ATF encourages broad public participation in its regulatory process and invites input on the proposed changes. The agency is committed to reviewing input in a timely manner and ensuring consideration of significant feedback into the final rules.

Clear instructions for submitting comments may be found via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at Regulations.gov and in each NPRM. The comment periods will generally be open for 90 days from the date of publication, but may vary. Please pay attention to the “DATES” section in each proposal for details.

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Secures Legal Vic­to­ry to Pro­tect Gun Own­ers from Fed­er­al Over­reach by Block­ing Biden-Era Gun Sale Rule

Attorney General Ken Paxton secured a landmark legal victory for gun owners, preserving an injunction that prevented enforcement of a Biden Administration Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) rule that unlawfully sought to violate Americans’ constitutional right to privately buy and sell firearms.

For decades, Congress has deliberately protected the ability of law-abiding Americans to engage in private firearm sales. In doing so, Congress narrowly defined who qualifies as a “dealer” to prevent federal agencies from overreaching into private, non-commercial transactions. The Biden-era rule attempted to upend that framework by broadly expanding the definition and threatened to subject hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners to presumptions of criminal liability for engaging in constitutionally protected conduct.

This unlawful rule exceeded the authority granted to the ATF by Congress and represented a direct violation of the Second Amendment.

In May 2024, Attorney General Paxton led a multistate coalition to sue the ATF over the unlawful regulation. Attorney General Paxton obtained a temporary restraining order followed by an injunction against the rule that prevents enforcement in all states party to the lawsuit. The injunction identified that the ATF rule likely violated federal law by “requiring that firearms owners prove innocence rather than the government prove guilt” which could “trigger civil or criminal penalties for conduct deemed lawful just yesterday.”

Now, the Trump Administration has moved to dismiss its appeal of the preliminary injunction, ensuring that gun owners will continue to be protected.

“The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of American freedom, and I will never allow it to be undermined by unlawful federal overreach,” said Attorney General Paxton. “This Biden-era rule was a blatant attempt to violate our Constitution and criminalize law abiding Americans for engaging in lawful private firearm sales. I am proud to have led this coalition to stop it, and I fully support the Trump Administration’s decision to abandon this appeal and restore the rule of law for gun owners across the country.”

To read the order, click here.