Category: Bureaucraps

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.

Pirro turned out to be a two faced liar

After Pirro’s Urging, D.C. Court of Appeals Grants Review of Decision Striking Down Magazine Ban

The D.C. Court of Appeals will re-litigate the District’s ban on magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, after a three-judge panel on the court ruled the ban unconstitutional.

A number of anti-gun attorneys general around the country submitted amicus briefs in support of the D.C. government’s request for a re-hearing, but the U.S. Attorney for D.C. raised some eyebrows when she too asked the court to grant the en banc request, even though her office hasn’t prosecuted violations of the magazine ban for more than six months.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s motion suggested that some capacity on magazine size might be constitutional, but Pirro was more concerned about the panel’s decision and its impact on D.C.’s gun registration law and ammunition restrictions. The panel threw out Tyree Benson’s charges for possessing a “large capacity” magazine, but also held that Benson could not have legally registered his handgun with the District because it was equipped with an illegal magazine, and tossed those charges as well.

The judge, however, gave D.C. a roadmap on how to enforce those statutes while keeping the magazine ban on ice, and the Metropolitan Police Department has taken those steps in order to keep enforcing the registration requirements. Pirro’s concerns were essentially moot by the time she asked the appellate court for an en banc review, but many Second Amendment advocates (including myself) were also critical of Pirro’s support for the gun registration and ammo restrictions to begin with.

Technically, the D.C Court of Appeals decision didn’t create a circuit court split because its a court of local jurisdiction, with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals serving as the federal appellate court for D.C. Still, the Benson case generated nationwide interest, and if the court had allowed the matter to rest with the panel’s decision intact, Benson would be cited in virtually every magazine ban case going forward.

The decision to take Benson en banc doesn’t guarantee that the full Court of Appeals will reverse the panel’s decision, but the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of reversal. Presumably, the court wouldn’t have granted the request unless the votes to reverse were already there.

As Moros says, now we’ll have to wait for the Third Circuit’s decision in ANJRPC v. Platkin to be released. That opinion, which could come out at any time, is expected to say New Jersey’s ban on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines violates the Second Amendment, which would create a legitimate circuit court split.

To be fair to Pirro, the D.C. Court of Appeals was probably already leaning towards granting the District’s en banc request even before she asked them to do so. Once she made it clear that she supported the District’s request, though, an en banc review was virtually guaranteed. At the very least it was an unforced error on the part of the U.S. Attorney, but given Pirro’s past statements and support for gun control laws (including bans on so-called assault weapons), it’s easy to understand why so many 2A supporters see her request as an outright betrayal of the DOJ’s professed support for and defense of the Second Amendment.

DOJ Reverses Course on Defending Biden’s ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule for Gun Sales

Gun Owners of America is celebrating a win in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after the Department of Justice abruptly reversed course in a lawsuit challenging the ATF’s expanded definition of who is “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms that was put into effect under the Biden administration and then-ATF Director Steve Dettelbach.

The rule was explicitly designed to get as close as possible to “universal” background checks without a new law being passed by Congress, and treated the vast majority of private, person-to-person sales as those that should be conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer. The attorneys general of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah, along with GOA, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Tennessee Firearms Association filed a lawsuit to block the law from being enforced, and a district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against the plaintiffs in June, 2024.

Biden’s DOJ appealed that decision, though, and the Trump administration continued to defend the rule even as officials said that virtually every one of Biden’s executive actions on firearms were in the process of being undone.

On Thursday, however, the DOJ filed a request with the Fifth Circuit to voluntarily dismiss its appeal with the plaintiffs’ consent. In their request, the DOJ’s attorneys said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives “plans to revisit” the rule and “revis[e] the guidelines for determining who is considered ‘engaged in the business’ of selling firearms.”

The DOJ also informed the court (and the rest ofus) that a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing the “engaged in the business rule” is “forthcoming”, and that in light of the proposed rule on the horizon the government “has determined that it is not appropriate to continue this appeal.”

Continue reading “”

Gun Rights Orgs Align Behind Harmeet Dhillon to Replace Pam Bondi as Attorney General

With Pam Bondi out as Attorney General, no-compromise gun rights groups are already making their preference crystal clear: Harmeet Dhillon is the choice. And unlike the usual political jockeying in Washington, this push isn’t coming from establishment insiders, it’s coming from grassroots organizations that have spent years fighting the gun confiscation agenda head-on.

Bondi’s Exit Opens the Door for Real Change

For many gun owners, Bondi’s tenure represented a familiar frustration. While running the Department of Justice, her record was seen as a mixed bag at best, with lingering defenses of federal gun control policies and a lack of urgency in dismantling the anti-gun bureaucracy embedded throughout DOJ. That’s why her removal is being viewed not as a setback, but as a long-overdue opportunity.

Why Harmeet Dhillon Is the Clear Upgrade

Harmeet Dhillon represents something very different. She has built a reputation as a legal fighter who . . .

  • Treats the Second Amendment as a civil right
  • Has taken on anti-gun policies in court
  • Has helped shift DOJ toward going on offense, not just playing defense

Gun rights groups like the National Association for Gun Rights and Texas Gun Rights are rallying behind her because they see someone who won’t manage decline, but will actively push to restore rights.

A Legal Team Already Aligned

Dhillon’s potential elevation wouldn’t happen in a vacuum. White House Chief Counsel Dave Warrington and Harmeet Dhillon both left Dhillon Law to join the Trump administration at the same time, signaling a coordinated effort to place strong constitutional attorneys in key roles.

Barry Arrington, former Chairman of the Texas Gun Rights Board, recently stepped down to join the DOJ’s Second Amendment Section. These aren’t isolated moves. They’re part of a broader shift — one that suggests the executive branch is finally beginning to take the Second Amendment seriously at a structural level.

Not a Silver Bullet, But a Major Step Forward

At the same time, gun rights leaders are making it clear: replacing the Attorney General alone isn’t a silver bullet. The Department of Justice is still packed with layers of the entrenched bureaucracy, thousands of anti-gun holdovers, and institutional resistance to reform

But here’s the difference: Harmeet Dhillon has already been working to dismantle that system from within. And if she moves up, whoever steps into her current role in the Civil Rights Division would be positioned to continue that work — potentially with fewer obstacles.

Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt didn’t mince words:

Gun owners don’t need another Attorney General who’s going to ‘manage’ the Second Amendment’s decline. We need a proven fighter, and that’s exactly what Harmeet Dhillon has been inside the DOJ. President Trump has a real opportunity here to appoint someone who will take the fight directly to the gun confiscation agenda and start cleaning house.

The Push Is On

With momentum building, groups like NAGR and TXGR are actively encouraging President Trump to make the call. Because for gun owners who have watched too many “Republicans” fall short, this moment is about more than just filling a position.

It’s about whether the Department of Justice will finally have leadership willing to defend the Second Amendment without compromise.

Brown v. ATF: Gun Rights Groups Challenge NFA Registration After Tax Repeal

The Second Amendment Foundation, American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, and Firearms Policy Coalition filed a supplemental brief in Brown v. ATF challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act’s remaining registration requirements now that President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the $200 tax on silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons,” according to a press release from the organization.

Prior to the legislation’s enactment, acquiring these items under the NFA required both paying the tax and registering the firearms with the federal government. Congress grounded this regime in its constitutional taxing authority. The gun rights organizations contend that by zeroing out the tax, the One Big Beautiful Bill stripped Congress of its constitutional basis for keeping the registration requirement in place.

“In response to our Motion for Summary Judgment, the court requested additional briefing, which highlight multiple critical elements of our claim,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are thrilled to have an additional opportunity to explain exactly why our claim is so strong. The brief highlights why SAF and our members have standing to bring this suit, and precisely how the merits analysis supports our position. As we always do, we make our positions as plainly and forthrightly as possible, and we post links to the entire docket for each case on our website so everyone can read the full arguments we are making on their behalf.”

Brown v. ATF is being litigated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under case number 4:25-cv-01162-SRC. Plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two private citizens, Chris Brown and Allen Mayville. Named defendants are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Acting ATF Director Daniel P. Driscoll, the United States Department of Justice, and Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi.

The supplemental brief, filed March 31, 2026, argues that suppressors fall within the Second Amendment’s plain text as integral components of firearms that facilitate their use and functionality. Plaintiffs contend that suppressors qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment, drawing on historical precedent and practical applications including their capacity to reduce noise, muzzle flash, and hearing damage in self-defense situations.

The brief further challenges the NFA’s characterization as a tax-and-registration regime rather than a licensing system, arguing that registration requirements are constitutionally suspect. Plaintiffs maintain that the NFA’s operation amounts to a registry of constitutionally protected arms, which conflicts with the Second Amendment’s text and historical tradition.

The plaintiffs seek to possess, acquire, or manufacture NFA-regulated firearms without registration, asserting that the NFA’s provisions inflict concrete, particularized injuries and create a credible threat of prosecution, as the defendants have not disclaimed intent to enforce the law against them.

“For almost a century, the NFA has been used to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of citizens,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We now have a chance to remove these unconstitutional restrictions and look forward to fully restoring the right to keep and bear arms for the countless Americans who own silencers and short-barreled rifles across the nation.”

The NFA should be abolished entirely. Its passage in the 1930s represented an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms and established the legal framework for every subsequent gun control measure that followed. Americans should not need government permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right, and courts should recognize the NFA for what it always was and strike it down completely.

NSSF Calls Out Real Threat to Public Safety, and It’s Not Guns

To hear the urban elite tell it, the problem in our country is that there are just too many guns. We need to curtail that, to discourage people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, and make it so that only certain, approved parties have firearms lawfully.

It’s funny how they keep saying it despite the fact that we’ve got more gun ownership than ever before, more people carrying guns than ever before, and violent crime is down over the last few years. Weird.

Yet it is an unfortunate fact that horrible things do keep happening. There are bad people out there who want to hurt others.

And yeah, something needs to be done about them. As the NSSF’s Larry Keane recently pointed out, though, the problem isn’t lawful gun owners. It’s the people who refuse to prosecute those who provide guns unlawfully.

Continue reading “”

Why do you think I call them ‘bureaucraps’?

Why is ATF Still Leaving Its Options Open for Prosecuting Owners of Braced Pistols?

The saga of ATF’s enforcement of the National Firearm Act’s “short barreled rifle” provisions against braced pistols has been a roller coaster ride of shifting interpretations. NRA-ILA has been keeping up with, reporting on, and advocating for reform the entire time. It seemed we had reached a low point with the publication of the rule Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces” during the Biden-Harris administration. Yet NRA, along with other pro-Second Amendment groups, successfully challenged that rule in court, and its enforcement was enjoined against NRA members, as well as other plaintiff groups in similar suits. Eventually, the rule was vacated in its entirety. Unfortunately, that did not provide the lasting relief many had hoped.

Last year, we reported on ATF audaciously claiming, in the waning days of the Biden-Harris administration, that all braced pistols were subject to the NFA. It then quickly walked backed that position as “overbroad.”

But then NRA exposed the ongoing prosecution of Taylor Taranto for possession of an unregistered SBR, based on allegations concerning a CZ Scorpion EVO 3 S1 pistol with an attached SB Tactical stabilizing brace. Taranto moved to have the charge dismissed. In its opposition to the motion, filed during the Biden-Harris administration, the government claimed:

Although the rule is stayed (and, now, vacated), ATF is not barred from continuing to enforce the underlying statute as it always has: by making case-by-case determinations about whether particular braced firearms constitute “rifles” under the statute. And of course, because the rule reflects ATF’s best understanding of the statute, those determinations will naturally tend to look substantially like the determinations that would follow from applying the clear framework outline in the rule.

We reported on that case in February of 2025, and the SBR charged against Taranto was dismissed, “in the interest of justice,” under the Trump administration that April. The dismissal of Taranto’s NFA charge followed an April 7, 2025, announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice and ATF of a “comprehensive review of [the] stabilizing brace regulations.” This was supposed to include “consultations with stakeholders, including gun rights organizations, industry leaders and legal experts,” with the goal of ensuring the resulting policies are “constitutional and protective of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

In the meantime, though, ATF continued to resist attempts by litigants in cases remaining against the rule to obtain final judgments on the rule’s illegality, claiming the issue was rendered moot by the final judgement in the case vacating the rule. This, the agency claimed, rendered the rule “formally nullified and revoked[.]”

A March 16 government filing in the ongoing case of Texas v. ATF has now renewed concerns that the agency reserves the right to continue bringing felony prosecutions under the NFA for possession of unregistered braced pistols. The passage in question is meant to rebut the plaintiffs’ claims that there are still live issues in the case that deserve a final judgment on the merits, rather than dismissal on mootness.

Continue reading “”

ATF Says Brace Rule Case Is Moot, Warns Some Braced Pistols Still Face NFA Enforcement

In a blunt court filing from Monday, March 16, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) urged a federal judge to dismiss a high-profile challenge to its now-defunct pistol stabilizing brace rule, arguing the case has become completely moot. At the same time, the agency made clear it has no intention of abandoning enforcement against certain braced pistols under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).

The 6-page reply brief, filed in State of Texas et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al., marks the latest twist in a legal saga that began three years ago. The plaintiffs, led by the State of Texas and joined by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and several Texas citizens, had sued to block the ATF’s January 31, 2023, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” rule (88 Fed. Reg. 6478). That rule used a complex points-based system to reclassify many popular braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs), subjecting owners to NFA registration, a $200 tax stamp, and potential felony charges for non-compliance.

But the landscape changed dramatically when another federal court issued a universal vacatur of the entire rule, a decision that became final in mid-2025. With the rule formally nullified and revoked nationwide, the ATF now argues that nothing remains for this Texas court to enjoin or declare unlawful.

“The case became moot,” the ATF’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiffs appear to accept that the Court can no longer grant them meaningful relief in relation to the Rule, which has already been formally nullified and revoked through universal vacatur.”

The agency’s earlier motion to dismiss cited Fifth Circuit precedents holding that, once an agency rule is vacated, APA challenges lose their live controversy. Plaintiffs’ opposition brief sought to keep the case alive by insisting the court could still block the “legal theories” that underpinned the rule, specifically the ATF’s position that at least some pistols equipped with stabilizing braces qualify as NFA-regulated short-barreled rifles.

Continue reading “”

Judge Denies DOJ Request to Limit Injunction on Post Office Carry Ban

In June, 2024 the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on firearms in U.S. postal facilities. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled in favor of the plaintiffs last September, but the DOJ has tried to keep that ruling on hold while it appeals to the Fifth Circuit.

The appellate court denied the DOJ’s request back in January, but at that point the DOJ had also settled on a secondary strategy; asking O’Connor to limit the scope of the injunction so that it would only cover those who were FPC and SAF members at the time the lawsuit was filed. Since late October, the two sides have been filing back-and-forth briefs on the DOJ’s request, and today O’Connor handed down his decision.

O’Connor’s decision covers present and future members of Second Amendment Foundation as well. From today’s order:

The Government asserts that the Court’s injunctive relief should be limited only to individuals who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”) and the Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”) as of June 18, 2024—the date Plaintiffs filed their complaint—because FPC and SAF “did not have standing to represent and obtain relief for members who did not yet exist.”

The Government argues that to obtain relief for members who join after June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs should have sought class certification. Otherwise, the Government argues, nearly any organization could evade the Supreme Court’s prohibition of nationwide injunctions in Trump v.CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 861 (2025) by using associational standing as a “backdoor way” to grant universal injunctions.

But despite its arguments, the Government has not provided, and the Court has not found, a case limiting injunctive relief to only those members of an association at the time a lawsuit is filed. And while Plaintiffs could have sought class certification, they apparently also relied instead on associational standing—which the Government seemingly agrees they have in some form.

The DOJ’s attempt to limit the scope of the injunction has less to do with the 2A issues involved in the case and much more to do with its concern about nationwide injunctions in non-2A cases dealing with, say, immigration efforts. The DOJ can’t really argue that some broad injunctions are okay but others are not, so this is at least a consistent position on the part of the Trump administration.

Of course, there’s nothing requiring DOJ to continue to defend the carry ban in postal facilities either. The administration could simply drop its appeal and let O’Connor’s decision stand. It could also voluntarily rescind the ban of its own accord… and I’d argue that’s exactly what the Trump administration should do now.

So what are the real world implications here? It sounds to me like all current FPC and SAF members are covered by the injunction, which means that they should be allowed to carry in postal facilities (as customers, not as employees). I would suggest having something identifying you as a member if you do so, though, and be prepared to explain the contours of the lawsuit and Judge O’Connor’s decisions to those public-facing employees who have no idea that the injunction is in place.