ATF Rule Changes Could Ease Restrictions for Gun Owners and Dealers

Government officials are always eager to bind us in red tape; it’s rare that they cut the stuff. It’s a special treat when an agency as obnoxious as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives rolls back any sort of restrictions, but that’s what it’s doing with regulatory revisions that will, overall, ease the burden of regulations on gun owners and firearms dealers. There’s nothing groundbreaking in the proposed rules changes, but any relief is welcome relief.

“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 accordance with Executive Order 14206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” the DOJ announced last week.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” commented 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.”

The referenced executive order, from February 2025, directed the Attorney General to “examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”

Administrative changes in rules can’t repeal intrusive laws, like the National Firearms Act (the Firearms Policy Coalition is challenging the 1934 NFA in court). But they can make life harder or easier for people by reinterpreting laws and emphasizing or deemphasizing enforcement in some areas. As detailed in the Federal Register, some of the ATF’s proposed rule changes, which must undergo a comment period, are more substantial than others. A few have the potential to significantly reduce expense and legal burdens for shooters and gun dealers.

Importantly, one of the rule changes rolls back a Biden-era rule reinterpretation that turned pistols equipped with wrist braces into (heavily regulated) short-barreled rifles. “Individuals would be able to resume purchasing firearms with an attached ‘stabilizing brace’ as the public had done prior to the 2023 final rule, as long as the firearm is not intended to be fired from the shoulder and does not fall within the statutory definition of ‘firearm’ under the NFA,” the ATF notes.

Another change would specify that firearms dealers no longer have to hold sales records indefinitely, which many self-defense activists see as backdoor registration of guns and owners: “ATF is considering whether to establish the retention period at 20 years or 30 years as an appropriate balance between the cost of maintaining records for longer periods and the public safety interest in being able to trace more crime guns and to more quickly apprehend perpetrators of crimes involving firearms.” That’s still too long—any mandatory retention period is excessive—but it’s an improvement.

Last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act failed to repeal registration requirements for noise suppressors/silencers and other NFA-regulated devices, but it reduced the transfer and “making” tax on them to $0. In our rules-bound world, though, laws don’t have full effect until administrative agencies change their red tape accordingly. One of the new changes does that by altering rules in accord “with the OBBBA by narrowing the scope of the $200 tax to only machine guns and destructive devices and reducing the tax on silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, or AOWs to $0.”

Expanding choices for shooters (and reducing anxiety for industry participants), another change clarifies that “federal firearms licensees (‘FFLs’) may lawfully import frames, receivers, or barrels that may be used on both sporting and non-sporting firearms (‘dual-use frames, receivers, or barrels’).”

Other changes remove language defining “bump stocks” as machine guns, clarify the definition of “engaged in the business” of selling firearms so that people selling personal guns are less likely to unknowingly run afoul of requirements that they hold Federal Firearms Licenses, and “allow individuals to transport affected NFA firearms across state lines for short-term periods up to 365 days without the need to submit a written request and receive approval from the Director before doing so.”

One of the tests of the significance of any deregulatory move is the degree to which the control-freak caucus screams that the sky will fall in consequence. The portents are encouraging.

“Today is a great day if you sell illegal guns or commit crime — the rest of us should be worried. President Trump is doing everything he can to reward his gun industry CEO friends and donors. The actions announced today will make it easier for people to commit gun crimes while making it harder for law enforcement to solve them,” GIFFORDS Executive Director Emma Brown complained about the proposed rule changes.

In contrast, Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut responded to the planned administrative shift by saying, “There’s still a long way to go to eliminate the burdens facing peaceable, gun-owning Americans, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. We will continue reviewing the proposed rules and participate in the rulemaking process to ensure appropriate feedback is provided.”

The Trump administration has a mixed reputation when it comes to gun regulation. Last month, FPC called out federal officials for maintaining restrictive Biden-era rules as to what constitutes a firearm frame or receiver. “In case after case, the Trump Administration has adopted authoritarian, anti-American positions to restrict Second Amendment rights and prosecute those who exercise them,” the FPC warned.

But the Trump administration has also challenged restrictive laws, such as Denver’s ban on some semiautomatic rifles, and the Justice Department foresees the U.S. Supreme Court overturning others. Combined with the ATF rule changes, there are good reasons to believe the current administration is friendlier to self-defense rights than its predecessors.

Even if that “friendlier” stance ultimately means that this White House offers a mixed bag when it comes to rights protected by the Second Amendment, that’s still an improvement over the active hostility to liberty that came before.