34 Proposed and Final ATF Rule Changes Explained
Proposed Rule Changes
1) Stabilizing Braces Rule Rollback
If finalized, the rollback would remove the ATF’s “multi-factor” test that used factors like weight, length of pull, optics, marketing materials, and intended use to determine whether a braced firearm qualified as a Short-Barreled Rifle (SBR) under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
Instead, firearm classifications would return to the original statutory definition of a rifle: “a firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” For most gun owners and FFLs, this would effectively return stabilizing braces to their pre-2023 status and eliminate NFA registration requirements for many braced firearms.
ATF estimates this rollback could affect millions of firearms currently in circulation and reduce compliance costs by more than $140 million annually. However, firearms that are clearly designed to be shoulder-fired could still be classified as SBRs on a case-by-case basis.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
3) Remove Youth Handgun Safety Notice Requirement
The ATF is proposing to eliminate the long-standing requirement that FFLs post Youth Handgun Safety Act notices and provide written warnings to handgun purchasers during sales transactions.
The original rule was created in 1998 to educate the public about the newly enacted Youth Handgun Safety Act, which restricts handgun possession and transfers involving juveniles. However, ATF now argues that the law has been in place for more than 25 years, is widely known, and is easily accessible online through government and public resources.
If finalized, gun dealers would no longer be required to display ATF warning signs or include printed notices with handgun sales. The agency states the requirement creates unnecessary administrative burdens on FFLs without providing meaningful public benefit.
ATF estimates the change could save the firearms industry roughly $8 million over the next 10 years by reducing paperwork, printing, and compliance requirements. The underlying federal law restricting handgun transfers to juveniles would remain fully in effect.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
5) Electronic Recordkeeping for FFLs
The ATF is proposing a rule that would officially allow Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to keep all required firearms records electronically instead of relying on paper files and bound books.
While many dealers already use approved digital systems through ATF rulings and variances, this proposal would standardize electronic recordkeeping nationwide and formally incorporate it into federal regulations. The rule would allow FFLs to electronically create, maintain, store, search, and back up records related to firearm transactions, including Form 4473s and acquisition/disposition records.
Under the proposal, electronic systems would need to meet minimum standards for security, audit trails, data integrity, backups, and searchability. Dealers would also be allowed to store records remotely using cloud or hosted storage providers located within the United States and subject to U.S. legal process.
ATF says the goal is to modernize the firearms industry’s recordkeeping practices, reduce paperwork and storage costs, improve efficiency during inspections, and make compliance easier for dealers while still preserving required safeguards and traceability.
The proposal would also allow dealers to scan and digitize older paper records, potentially eliminating the need to store years of physical paperwork once verified and backed up properly.
Importantly, the rule would remain optional. Dealers could still choose to keep traditional paper records if they prefer.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
7) Non-Over-the-Counter Sales Flexibility
The ATF is proposing major changes that would allow FFLs to conduct more firearm sales remotely within their own state instead of requiring customers to appear in person at the gun store.
Under the proposal, dealers could complete firearm transactions remotely as long as the buyer still passes a NICS background check and the dealer verifies the buyer’s identity using approved remote identity verification technology. This would include live video verification, digital ID validation, and identity-proofing systems similar to those already used by the IRS and other federal agencies.
Currently, most “non-over-the-counter” firearm transfers are limited to buyers who are exempt from background checks. ATF says the existing restrictions are outdated and no longer reflect modern technology capable of securely verifying identity remotely.
If finalized, the rule would allow same-state firearm buyers to complete much of the purchase process online while still maintaining federal background check requirements and mandatory waiting procedures. Dealers would still need to conduct video identity verification and submit the required notifications to local law enforcement.
ATF estimates the proposal could save firearm buyers more than 3.9 million hours annually in travel and in-store processing time while expanding convenience and flexibility for both dealers and customers. However, the agency notes that remote sales would remain optional for FFLs and would still be subject to all existing federal and state firearm laws.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
9) Joint NFA Registration for Spouses
The ATF is proposing a new rule that would allow married couples to jointly own and register NFA firearms, such as suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, machine guns, and destructive devices, without needing to create a legal trust.
Currently, many couples use NFA trusts so both spouses can legally possess and access the same NFA items. ATF says this process has become unnecessarily expensive, time-consuming, and administratively burdensome for both gun owners and the agency itself.
Under the proposal, spouses could jointly apply to make, transfer, receive, and register NFA firearms directly through ATF forms by submitting proof of a legal marriage. Both spouses would still undergo the same background checks and legal review currently required for trusts and individual registrations.
The rule would also simplify ownership issues after the death of one spouse. ATF notes that surviving spouses can sometimes unintentionally end up in possession of NFA firearms not legally registered to them, creating probate and transfer complications. Joint registration would help prevent those situations.
ATF says the proposal could save married couples millions of dollars over time by eliminating the need to create and maintain NFA trusts solely for shared ownership purposes. The agency estimates the rule could save gun owners more than $14 million over 10 years.
Importantly, the proposal would apply only to legally married spouses and not to friends, relatives, or other shared ownership arrangements. ATF says limiting joint registration to spouses helps prevent abuse of interstate transfer and ownership rules.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
11) Interstate Firearm Travel Clarification
The ATF is proposing major clarifications to federal interstate firearm transportation laws in order to better protect lawful gun owners while traveling between states.
Federal law already provides a “safe harbor” allowing individuals to transport unloaded firearms through states where they may otherwise be restricted. However, courts have interpreted those protections very narrowly, leading to arrests and legal problems for travelers during situations such as flight delays, overnight hotel stays, vehicle breakdowns, and other normal travel interruptions.
Under the proposed rule, ATF would officially recognize that common travel activities, such as stopping for gas, food, rest, medical emergencies, overnight lodging, or switching between transportation methods, are still considered protected interstate transportation under federal law.
The proposal also clarifies how firearms must be stored during travel. Firearms would still need to remain unloaded and inaccessible during transportation, and if stored outside of a vehicle during an overnight stay or similar interruption, they would need to be secured in a locked container.
Importantly, the rule would also extend protection to firearm-related accessories and equipment commonly transported with firearms. This includes ammunition, magazines, optics, lights, slings, stabilizing braces, grips, and similar accessories, provided they are legal under federal law and legal at both the starting location and final destination.
ATF says the proposal is intended to align federal law with the realities of modern travel while reducing the risk of lawful gun owners being arrested or prosecuted during unavoidable travel interruptions. However, the rule would not protect possession of firearms or accessories that are illegal at the traveler’s destination.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
13) Special Occupational Tax (SOT) Clarification
The ATF is proposing a rule to clarify that FFLs only need to pay one Special Occupational Tax (SOT) per business activity at a location, not one SOT for every license they hold.
Currently, many FFLs with multiple licenses at the same premises mistakenly believe they must pay duplicate SOTs for activities like manufacturing, importing, or dealing in NFA firearms. ATF says the confusion comes from the difference between the Gun Control Act licensing system and the NFA tax structure.
Under the proposal, SOT payments would clearly be tied to the type of business activity being performed: manufacturing, importing, or dealing. For example, an FFL holding both a Type 07 and Type 10 manufacturing license at the same location would only pay one manufacturing SOT because both licenses fall under the same business activity category.
However, businesses engaging in multiple different activities would still need multiple SOTs. For example, an FFL importing and manufacturing NFA firearms at the same premises would still need separate SOT payments for importing and manufacturing because they are different taxable business activities.
ATF estimates the clarification could save the firearms industry roughly $280,000 annually and nearly $3 million over 10 years by reducing unnecessary duplicate SOT payments and simplifying compliance paperwork.
The agency emphasizes that the proposal does not change the underlying tax structure or create new exemptions. Instead, it officially clarifies how the law was already intended to work.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
15) Importing Dual-Use Firearm Parts
The ATF is proposing a rule that would officially allow the importation of “dual-use” firearm frames, receivers, and barrels that can be used in both sporting and non-sporting firearm configurations.
For years, ATF often denied the import of certain barrels and parts if they were previously used on military-style, non-sporting, or NFA firearms, even if those same parts could also be legally used in sporting firearms. The agency now says modern firearm designs have become highly modular, making that older interpretation outdated and difficult to apply consistently.
Under the proposal, a frame, receiver, or barrel could be imported as long as there is a legitimate sporting firearm configuration for that part at the time it enters the United States. Importantly, the part’s previous use on a non-sporting firearm would no longer automatically disqualify it from importation.
The rule would also clarify that once these parts are legally imported into the United States, they may later be used to assemble sporting firearms, non-sporting firearms, or even NFA-regulated firearms, as long as the final assembly complies with all other federal firearm laws, including 18 U.S.C. 922(r) and the National Firearms Act.
ATF says the change reflects the reality of the modern firearms industry, where many platforms share interchangeable components across multiple firearm configurations. The agency believes the proposal would increase flexibility for importers, manufacturers, and consumers while reducing unnecessary regulatory confusion.
The proposal could also expand the availability of imported firearm parts and potentially reduce manufacturing costs for some domestic firearm companies that rely on imported components. However, ATF acknowledges the rule could create increased competition for U.S.-based manufacturers that primarily produce frames, receivers, or barrels domestically.
Importantly, the proposal does not remove existing restrictions on importing fully assembled non-sporting firearms. The change only applies to qualifying dual-use frames, receivers, and barrels that have a valid sporting configuration at the time of importation.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
17) Converting Temporary Imports to Permanent
The ATF is proposing a rule that would allow firearm and defense article importers to convert certain temporary imports into permanent imports without first exporting and then re-importing the items.
Currently, firearms and defense articles temporarily brought into the United States under Department of State or Department of Commerce authorization generally must either be exported back out of the country or destroyed once the temporary import period expires. Even if the item could legally qualify for permanent importation, there is currently no direct process to convert it.
Under the proposal, importers could apply to ATF using Form 6 to permanently keep qualifying items already lawfully present in the United States. This would create a middle-ground option that avoids the costly and often impractical requirement of shipping items back out of the country only to immediately re-import them.
ATF says the issue commonly affects firearms and defense articles imported for testing, repair, calibration, demonstrations, manufacturing work, or temporary business use. In some cases, the items become damaged, modified, or economically impractical to export, forcing businesses into unnecessary losses under the current system.
The proposal would still require ATF review and approval before a temporary item could become a permanent import. The firearm or defense article would still need to comply with all existing federal import restrictions under the Gun Control Act, National Firearms Act, and Arms Export Control Act.
The rule would also require permanently retained firearms to receive all required importer markings and serial number documentation if they were originally exempt during temporary importation. ATF says this ensures the firearms remain fully traceable and compliant once converted.
According to the agency, the proposal would reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and save businesses significant costs while maintaining all existing federal oversight and import controls. ATF believes the change improves efficiency without negatively impacting public safety.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
19) Firearms on Common Carriers (Travel Clarification)
The ATF is proposing a rule to clarify that simply traveling with a firearm on a common carrier, such as a bus, train, or airplane, does not automatically mean you have “delivered” the firearm to the carrier under federal law.
Federal law currently makes it illegal to deliver a firearm or ammunition to a common or contract carrier without notifying them. However, the law never clearly defined what “delivery” actually means, creating confusion and concerns that simply boarding public transportation with a firearm could potentially violate federal law.
Under the proposal, a firearm would only be considered “delivered” if the traveler actually gives up possession or custody of the firearm to the carrier. If the traveler keeps direct physical control of the firearm or ammunition during the trip, such as carrying it on their person or in a backpack under their control, it would not count as delivery under this law.
The rule also clarifies that rideshare services, taxis, limousines, buses, metro systems, and similar transportation services are generally not considered “common or contract carriers” for purposes of this specific firearm notification law when passengers maintain possession of their belongings.
Importantly, the proposal does not override TSA regulations, airline policies, or state and local firearm laws. For example, carrying a firearm onto a commercial airplane would still remain heavily restricted under separate federal aviation laws and security regulations.
ATF says the proposal is intended to restore a more common-sense interpretation of the law and reduce the risk of accidental felony charges against lawful gun owners traveling with firearms. The agency specifically criticized earlier court decisions that interpreted “delivery” too broadly, even in situations where the traveler never surrendered control of the firearm.
The rule would still require notification procedures when firearms are actually checked into luggage or otherwise transferred into the custody of a carrier. The clarification only applies when the traveler personally maintains direct possession and control throughout the trip.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
21) Brady Background Check Exceptions Clarified
The ATF is proposing a rule to clarify when a state-issued firearm permit can legally be used instead of running a NICS background check during a firearm purchase from an FFL.
Federal law has long allowed certain concealed carry permits and firearm licenses to serve as an alternative to a NICS check if the state’s permitting process already includes a qualifying background investigation. However, ATF says inconsistent state systems and past enforcement interpretations created confusion about which permits actually qualify.
Under the proposal, qualifying permits would need to be both valid and unexpired. Even if a state still considers an expired permit legally “active” for some purposes, ATF says it could not be used to bypass a federal background check once the permit expiration date passes.
The proposal also reinforces the federal five-year rule. Permits must either be issued within the previous five years or re-verified through a qualifying background check at least every five years. This means some “lifetime” permits could still qualify, but only if the state periodically rechecks the permit holder’s eligibility.
ATF also clarifies that states are not automatically disqualified simply because administrative mistakes happen or because a prohibited person was accidentally issued a permit. Instead, ATF says the focus should remain on whether the state’s actual laws and official procedures meet federal requirements.
For FFLs, the proposal would create clearer compliance rules but also place more responsibility on dealers to verify permit expiration dates, qualification status, and re-verification timelines before skipping a NICS check. When in doubt, dealers would still be expected to run the background check.
Importantly, the proposal does not create any new exemptions to background checks. ATF says the goal is simply to standardize and clarify how the existing Brady Act permit exceptions are applied nationwide.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
23) Definition of Business Premises
The ATF is proposing a rule that would expand the definition of a licensed “business premises” so certain adjacent or nearby properties can legally operate under a single FFL.
Currently, many firearm businesses are required to obtain separate licenses for buildings or units that are physically close together, even if they are directly next door, across the street, or located in the same shopping center. ATF says this creates unnecessary licensing costs, duplicate paperwork, and additional compliance burdens for businesses operating as a single company.
Under the proposal, properties that physically touch each other would automatically qualify as one business premises. The rule would also allow nearby non-touching properties to count as one location if they are adjacent and share the same parking lot, sidewalk, or roadway.
Examples provided by ATF include businesses operating out of multiple units in the same shopping center, buildings directly across the street from one another, or neighboring structures on connected lots. In those situations, a single FFL could potentially cover all qualifying locations instead of requiring multiple licenses.
ATF says the proposal reflects how many firearm businesses already operate in the real world and aligns with previous ATF variances and guidance issued on a case-by-case basis. The agency estimates the rule could save businesses hundreds of dollars per additional location while reducing licensing and renewal paperwork.
Importantly, the proposal would not eliminate ATF inspection authority or reduce compliance requirements. All qualifying properties would still remain subject to federal firearm regulations, inspections, recordkeeping rules, and traceability requirements.
The rule would also not apply to properties that are too far apart. ATF says each situation would still be evaluated individually to determine whether the locations are truly adjacent and function as part of the same business premises.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
25) Definition of “Willfully” Violating the Law
The ATF is proposing a rule that would formally define what it means to “willfully” violate federal firearms laws when determining whether an FFL should face license revocation, suspension, or civil penalties.
For years, courts across the country have used different definitions of “willfully,” leading to inconsistent enforcement standards. Some courts allowed FFL licenses to be revoked for repeated mistakes or what ATF described as “plain indifference,” even when violations may have been accidental or unintentional.
Under the proposed rule, ATF would adopt a narrower definition requiring that a person intentionally engage in conduct they know is unlawful. In other words, the government would generally need to show that the person knew their actions were illegal, even if they did not know the exact statute or regulation being violated.
The proposal would also clarify that repeated violations can still become evidence of willfulness if the person continues violating the law after being made aware of the requirements. However, ATF specifically states that repeated clerical mistakes or paperwork errors caused by inadvertence would not automatically qualify as willful misconduct.
Another major part of the proposal addresses “willful blindness.” ATF says individuals cannot intentionally avoid learning firearm laws or regulations and then claim ignorance later. Deliberately avoiding knowledge of the law could still satisfy the willfulness requirement.
The rule also creates standards for supervisors and business owners. FFL holders could potentially be held responsible for employee violations if they knowingly ignore misconduct, fail to correct violations, conceal problems, or refuse to take reasonable disciplinary or corrective action after learning about illegal conduct.
ATF says the proposal is partly intended to reverse concerns created during the prior administration’s “zero tolerance” enforcement approach, which many in the firearms industry believed allowed licenses to be revoked over technical or unintentional mistakes. According to ATF, the new definition is meant to better align with Supreme Court precedent and protect FFLs from losing licenses over accidental errors while still allowing enforcement against intentional violations.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
27) Defense Article Terminology Alignment
The ATF is proposing a rule that would formally add definitions for terms like “component,” “part,” and “accessories and attachments” into federal import regulations under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).
While these terms have been used in firearm import regulations for years, ATF’s regulations never actually defined them. In practice, ATF has already been relying on the State Department’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) definitions when reviewing firearm and defense article imports. This proposal would officially bring ATF’s wording in line with the State Department’s system.
Under the proposed definitions, an “accessory” or “attachment” would generally refer to something that improves or enhances an item but is not required for it to function. A “component” would refer to an assembled part necessary for operation, while a “part” would refer to a single unassembled piece of a component, accessory, or attachment.
One important clarification specifically affects firearm imports under “Category I – Firearms” of the U.S. Munitions Import List. ATF proposes clarifying that certain unassembled pieces of accessories or attachments would not automatically count as regulated firearm “parts” under import law.
ATF says the main goal is consistency and predictability. By matching State Department terminology, importers and manufacturers would have a clearer understanding of how firearm-related items are classified during import reviews, reducing confusion and inconsistent decisions between agencies.
For most gun owners, the proposal would likely have little to no direct impact because it primarily affects import classification procedures used by the firearms industry. However, the rule could become important in future disputes over whether certain items are regulated firearm components, accessories, or unregulated parts.
ATF also states the proposal does not create new restrictions, bans, or compliance burdens. Instead, the agency describes it as a technical definitions update intended to harmonize federal import and export terminology across agencies.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
2) Dealer Definition (Engaged in the Business) Revision
The ATF is proposing to roll back major portions of its 2024 “Engaged in the Business” dealer rule, which expanded who could be considered a firearms dealer requiring a Federal Firearms License (FFL).
The previous rule created controversial “presumptions” that could classify someone as a dealer based on factors such as quickly reselling firearms, repeatedly selling similar firearms, or using business-style payment methods. Critics argued the rule blurred the line between private sales and operating a firearms business, while also creating concerns about “universal background checks” through regulation.
If finalized, this proposal would remove those presumptions and return to a more traditional case-by-case standard focused on whether someone is repetitively buying and selling firearms with the intent to make a profit. The ATF also proposes restoring broader protections for personal collections, including firearms owned for self-defense and other lawful personal uses.
The agency states the previous expansion created confusion, failed to significantly increase FFL applications, and raised concerns about regulatory overreach. However, the rule would still maintain the core federal requirement that anyone truly operating as a firearms dealer must obtain an FFL.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
4) Form 4473 Modernization
The ATF is proposing a major modernization of the Form 4473 process aimed at reducing paperwork, simplifying compliance, and expanding digital options for both gun dealers and firearm purchasers.
One of the biggest proposed changes would extend the validity period of a completed NICS background check and Form 4473 from 30 days to two calendar months. ATF says this would reduce accidental compliance violations and give buyers more flexibility when delayed background checks or waiting periods occur.
The proposal would also allow expanded use of electronic Form 4473 systems, including auto-populating information from IDs, digital document storage, electronic notifications, and broader acceptance of digital identification documents. In addition, the rule would simplify proof-of-residency requirements by allowing documents such as leases, bank statements, utility bills, and vehicle registrations to verify residency.
ATF also wants to streamline the form itself by removing unnecessary questions, simplifying instructions, and reducing duplicate information. According to the agency, the goal is to cut the average completion time for Form 4473 in half while maintaining the same background check and public safety safeguards already required under federal law.
The proposed rule would also formally establish procedures for private-party background checks through FFLs and voluntary firearm handler background checks for employees who handle firearms at licensed businesses.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
6) Firearm Record Retention Limits
The ATF is proposing to end the current requirement for FFLs to keep most firearm transaction records indefinitely and instead replace it with a fixed retention period of either 20 or 30 years.
Under the proposal, records such as Form 4473s and acquisition/disposition (A&D) logs could eventually be destroyed once they reach the retention limit. ATF says the change is intended to reduce long-term storage burdens on dealers while also limiting the massive amount of records currently maintained by the government.
The agency argues that most crime gun traces already rely on records less than 20 years old, with only a small percentage requiring older documents. However, the ATF is still considering whether the final retention period should be 20 years or 30 years because extending retention increases successful firearm trace rates.
Certain records would still remain permanent, including manufacturer and importer acquisition records, since those are important for determining a firearm’s origin, age, and interstate commerce history. The proposal would also create shorter retention periods for newer record types, including 90-day retention for private-party transfer background checks and voluntary employee firearm-handler checks.
For gun dealers, the rule could significantly reduce physical and digital storage costs over time. For gun owners, it could also improve long-term privacy by ensuring most firearm transaction records are not retained forever.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
8) NFA Transport Rules Simplified
The ATF is proposing major changes to simplify interstate travel rules for lawful owners of National Firearms Act (NFA) items such as suppressors, machine guns, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and destructive devices.
Under the proposal, owners would no longer need to submit ATF Form 5320.20 or wait for ATF approval before temporarily transporting eligible NFA firearms across state lines for trips lasting 365 days or less. Instead, lawful owners could simply transport their registered NFA items as long as the firearm is legal in the destination state and the owner carries proof of NFA registration.
For longer-term moves or permanent relocations lasting more than 365 days, owners would still need to notify ATF at least 14 days in advance. However, the major change is that owners would no longer need to wait for ATF approval before beginning travel unless ATF specifically revokes authorization due to a legal issue.
The proposal would also officially allow lawful “pass-through” travel through states that prohibit certain NFA firearms, provided the firearms are transported in compliance with federal interstate transportation protections under 18 U.S.C. 926A.
ATF says the current approval process creates unnecessary delays, paperwork, and travel uncertainty for lawful gun owners while offering little public safety benefit. According to the agency, only about 0.5% of transport requests were denied due to destination-state legality issues over the past five years.
Importantly, the rule would not change the approval requirements for temporarily exporting NFA firearms outside the United States. International transport would still require prior ATF approval.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
10) Remove CLEO Notification Requirement
The ATF is proposing to eliminate the requirement that NFA applicants notify their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) when filing paperwork for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, machine guns, and other NFA-regulated firearms.
Currently, applicants submitting ATF Form 1, Form 4, or Responsible Person Questionnaires (Form 23) must send copies of those documents to their local sheriff, police chief, or other designated CLEO. However, this has only been a notification requirement since 2016, not an approval process.
ATF says the system has not worked as intended and provides little to no investigative or public safety value. According to the agency, most law enforcement agencies simply discard the paperwork, and ATF is not aware of CLEOs conducting independent investigations or objecting to NFA transfers through the notification process.
If finalized, applicants would no longer need to determine the correct CLEO, mail copies of forms, or certify that notifications were sent. ATF would still conduct all required background checks and legal reviews through the existing federal approval process.
The agency estimates the change could save applicants more than $11 million annually in time, paperwork, and administrative costs. ATF also says the proposal would reduce confusion among both applicants and local law enforcement agencies about what the CLEO notifications are actually used for.
Importantly, the proposal would not change any approval standards, registration requirements, or federal background checks for NFA items. It would only remove the local notification step.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
12) Machine Gun Transfers Between Dealers
The ATF is proposing to simplify and clarify the rules surrounding certain transfers of post-1986 machine guns between qualified FFLs and Special Occupational Taxpayers (SOTs).
Currently, dealers requesting “dealer sample” machine guns for law enforcement demonstrations must provide detailed justification letters explaining future sales potential, quantity needs, and why the firearm is necessary. ATF says these requirements became overly complex and extended beyond what federal law actually requires.
Under the proposed rule, dealers would still need a request letter from a government agency, but the process would become much simpler. The law letter would only need to confirm that the government agency is requesting a specific firearm and that the transfer is occurring under government authority.
The proposal would also remove vague requirements stating that machine guns must be “particularly suitable” for government use. Instead, manufacturers and dealers would only need to show that the firearm is being made, imported, or transferred on behalf of or at the request of a government entity.
Another major change would simplify the process for FFLs/SOTs exiting the NFA business. Dealers going out of NFA operations could transfer post-sample machine guns more easily using ATF Form 3 while still retaining their standard FFL if desired.
The rule would also officially allow qualified licensees to temporarily receive unregistered government-owned machine guns for repair, manufacturing, testing, or modification work, provided the firearms are returned to the government afterward.
Importantly, the proposal does not change civilian machine gun restrictions under federal law. Post-1986 machine guns would still remain restricted to government agencies and properly licensed businesses.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
14) Firearms in Trade Zones & Bonded Warehouses
The ATF is proposing to expand what firearm importers and dealers can legally do inside Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZs) and Customs Bonded Warehouses (CBWs), while also aligning how both facilities are treated under federal firearms regulations.
Currently, ATF regulations generally allow firearms to be brought into FTZs only for temporary storage and do not extend the same treatment to CBWs. This has created confusion and forced some importers to relocate operations or establish expensive FTZ facilities simply to stay compliant.
Under the proposal, firearms brought into either FTZs or CBWs would no longer be considered officially “imported” until they are removed into the United States for domestic distribution. This means businesses could use both facility types more interchangeably under ATF regulations.
The rule would also remove the restrictive “for storage only” language currently attached to FTZ operations. As a result, importers could potentially perform additional approved activities inside these facilities, such as repackaging, sorting, modifying, manufacturing-related work, or reconfiguring firearms before lawful importation or export.
ATF says the change would reduce unnecessary costs and provide greater flexibility for importers while still maintaining all existing customs oversight, firearm tracing requirements, import approvals, and federal restrictions on prohibited firearms.
The agency estimates the proposal could save affected importers millions of dollars by avoiding costly facility relocations and allowing businesses to use existing bonded warehouse infrastructure instead of creating new FTZ operations.
Importantly, the proposal does not remove import restrictions under the Gun Control Act, National Firearms Act, or Arms Export Control Act. Firearms would still need to comply with all federal import laws before entering the commercial U.S. market.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
16) Training Rounds Not Considered Ammunition
The ATF is proposing a rule that would clarify certain training rounds are not legally considered “ammunition” under federal law because they are not designed for use in actual firearms.
These training rounds are commonly used with specialized conversion kits or dedicated training guns for military, law enforcement, and force-on-force training scenarios. Unlike traditional ammunition, the rounds use low-energy projectiles designed to provide realistic training feedback without functioning as lethal combat ammunition.
ATF says its previous interpretation treated these rounds as ammunition simply because they contained components like primers, cartridge cases, and propellant powder. However, the agency now acknowledges the legal definition of ammunition specifically requires the item to be designed for use in a firearm, which these training systems are not.
Under the proposal, qualifying training rounds would no longer require ATF Form 6 import permits or Form 6A import confirmations. This would significantly reduce paperwork and allow manufacturers and importers to bring these products into the United States more freely.
The rule would also expand commercial availability beyond primarily government and law enforcement sales. Consumers and private training companies could see increased access to realistic training tools, potentially with lower prices due to increased competition and easier importing.
ATF emphasizes that not everything marketed as a “training round” would automatically qualify for the exemption. The agency would still evaluate whether the round is truly designed for non-combat training use and whether it can function in an actual firearm.
Importantly, less-lethal ammunition such as rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, and riot-control munitions would still be regulated as ammunition under federal law. The proposal applies only to specialized training rounds designed for dedicated training systems.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
18) NFA Marking Requirements Simplified
The ATF is proposing a rule that would eliminate the requirement for many Form 1 makers to engrave their personal information onto existing firearms when converting them into NFA firearms.
Currently, if someone takes an existing firearm, such as a rifle, and legally converts it into an NFA item like a short-barreled rifle (SBR), they must keep the original manufacturer markings while also adding their own name, city, and state to the firearm. ATF now says this requirement creates unnecessary cost, clutter, and confusion without providing meaningful public safety benefits.
Under the proposal, individuals making NFA firearms from already-manufactured firearms could simply adopt the original manufacturer or importer markings already on the firearm, including the existing serial number. The firearm would still remain fully registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) through the Form 1 process.
ATF notes that most Form 1 makers currently have to pay gunsmiths or engraving companies to add the required markings because they do not own compliant engraving equipment themselves. The agency estimates the proposal could save gun owners approximately $54 per firearm and nearly $3.5 million annually nationwide.
The rule would only apply when modifying an already-existing firearm. Individuals manufacturing NFA firearms completely from scratch would still be required to add their own identifying markings because those firearms would not already contain manufacturer serial numbers or identifying information.
ATF also says the proposal could actually reduce tracing confusion because firearms would no longer contain multiple serial numbers or overlapping identifying marks. According to the agency, firearm traces primarily rely on the original manufacturer/importer markings already required under federal law.
Importantly, the proposal does not remove NFA registration requirements or background checks. It only removes the duplicate engraving requirement for qualifying Form 1 makers using existing firearms.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
20) Mental Health Definitions Update
The ATF is proposing major updates to its firearm prohibition definitions related to mental health adjudications and involuntary commitments. The agency says the current terminology is outdated, overly broad, and in some cases improperly restricts firearm rights for people who are not actually dangerous.
One of the biggest changes would affect individuals who were previously prohibited from owning firearms simply because they needed help managing financial affairs or government benefits. ATF specifically points to veterans who were assigned VA fiduciaries for financial assistance but were never found to be dangerous to themselves or others.
Under the proposal, simply needing financial assistance or having a fiduciary would no longer automatically make someone prohibited from possessing firearms. Instead, the rule would focus more narrowly on individuals with severe intellectual disabilities, permanent mental incompetence, or formal involuntary commitments that meet stricter legal standards.
The proposal also updates the definitions of “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution” to better separate the two categories. ATF says previous rules blurred the distinction between mental disability determinations and involuntary mental health commitments.
To qualify as a firearm-disqualifying adjudication under the proposed rule, individuals would generally need stronger due-process protections, including hearings, legal representation, notice requirements, and a higher burden of proof. ATF says this aligns the process more closely with constitutional protections and modern legal standards.
The agency estimates the proposal could restore firearm rights eligibility to thousands of people, especially veterans, who were previously entered into the NICS background check system solely because of financial competency rulings rather than dangerousness. However, ATF also acknowledges concerns that narrowing the definitions too much could potentially allow some mentally unstable individuals to legally obtain firearms.
Importantly, the proposal does not remove firearm prohibitions for individuals who are involuntarily committed to mental institutions, found dangerous to themselves or others, found not guilty by reason of insanity, or permanently incompetent to stand trial due to severe mental illness or intellectual disability.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
22) Biological Sex on ATF Forms
The ATF is proposing a rule that would formally define the word “sex” on ATF firearms and explosives forms as biological sex, male or female, and not gender identity.
According to ATF, forms such as the Form 4473, Form 1, and Form 4 have long required applicants to list their sex, but the term itself was never specifically defined in federal firearm regulations. The agency says the proposal is intended to remove ambiguity and align ATF regulations with a recent executive order and what it describes as the “ordinary meaning” of the term.
If finalized, individuals completing ATF forms would be instructed to select their biological sex when filling out firearm, NFA, and explosives paperwork. ATF says this would apply across multiple sections of federal regulations but would not add any new questions, forms, or approval requirements.
The proposal would also standardize “penalty of perjury” language across ATF forms and make several minor technical wording updates within the regulations. According to ATF, these changes are largely administrative and intended to improve consistency.
ATF specifically states that the rule would not affect firearm eligibility, NICS background checks, transfer approvals, or possession laws. The agency also says the proposal carries no measurable economic impact and would not change compliance requirements for FFLs.
Supporters of the rule argue it provides clearer instructions and consistency across federal forms, while critics may view it as part of a broader federal policy debate surrounding gender identity terminology. ATF describes the proposal strictly as a clarification rather than a substantive regulatory change.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
24) Straw Purchase Clarification
The ATF is proposing a rule that would formally define what qualifies as an illegal straw purchase while also clearly outlining several lawful firearm transactions that are commonly misunderstood.
Although straw purchases have long been illegal under federal law, the rules have largely been based on court decisions, ATF guidance, and legal interpretations rather than a clear regulatory definition. ATF says this proposal is intended to reduce confusion for both firearm buyers and FFLs while creating more consistent enforcement standards nationwide.
Under the proposal, a straw purchase would generally fall into two categories. The first involves someone falsely claiming they are the actual buyer when they are really purchasing the firearm for another person. The second involves knowingly purchasing a firearm for someone who is prohibited from possessing firearms or intends to commit a crime.
Importantly, the proposal also clearly lists several situations that would NOT be considered straw purchases. These include bona fide gifts where no compensation is exchanged, parents purchasing firearms for minor children, lawful purchases between spouses living together, redeeming pawned firearms, retrieving repaired firearms, consignment returns, raffle winnings, and inheritance transfers.
ATF specifically clarifies that purchasing a firearm as a genuine gift is lawful as long as the buyer is using their own money and is not being reimbursed or compensated by the recipient. However, if someone provides money, services, or anything of value in exchange for the purchase, ATF says it would no longer qualify as a lawful gift.
The proposal would also reinforce responsibilities for FFLs. Dealers could not complete a firearm transfer if they know or reasonably suspect the transaction is actually a straw purchase intended to bypass background checks or transfer firearms to prohibited persons.
ATF says the proposal does not create any new criminal offenses but instead organizes and clarifies existing federal law, Supreme Court precedent, and the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act into one formal regulation. The agency believes the rule would help lawful gun owners better understand legal transactions while strengthening enforcement against intentional illegal purchases.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
26) Import Restrictions by Country (Updated System)
The ATF is proposing to modernize its firearm import restriction system by eliminating its own outdated list of banned countries and instead relying directly on the Department of State’s current foreign policy restrictions.
Right now, ATF maintains a separate “proscribed countries” list for firearm and defense article imports. However, ATF admits the list has not been properly updated since 2007 and already largely depends on State Department guidance behind the scenes. The proposal would officially align ATF regulations with the State Department’s constantly updated International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) list.
One of the biggest changes would remove longstanding blanket firearm import restrictions on several former Soviet countries, including Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. ATF says those restrictions were based on outdated trade and security concerns dating back to the 1990s and no longer reflect current U.S. foreign policy.
Russia, however, would remain restricted under separate trade agreements and import policies. Certain Russian firearms and ammunition would still continue to be denied import approval under the Voluntary Restraint Agreement (VRA) and other existing restrictions.
Instead of automatically denying imports from previously restricted countries, ATF would move toward a more flexible case-by-case review system. This could significantly expand sourcing opportunities for importers while increasing the variety of imported firearms, parts, and ammunition available on the U.S. market.
For consumers, the proposal could eventually mean increased availability and potentially lower prices on certain imported firearms and ammunition. ATF also says the rule would reduce regulatory confusion by ensuring there is only one official federal foreign-policy-based restriction list instead of separate ATF and State Department systems.
Domestic manufacturers, however, could face increased foreign competition if imports from previously restricted countries increase substantially. ATF acknowledges this possibility but says the overall goal is to create a more modern, consistent, and flexible import framework aligned with current foreign policy standards.
Source: Full Proposed Rule
New Rules
1) Machine Gun Definition (Bump Stocks) Fix
The ATF has finalized a rule removing bump stocks from the federal regulatory definition of “machine gun” in response to the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Garland v. Cargill.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that ATF exceeded its authority when it issued the 2018 bump stock ban. The Court determined that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because it does not fire “automatically” with a “single function of the trigger” as required under federal law.
As a result, ATF is now removing the portions of its regulations that specifically classified “bump-stock-type devices” as machine guns. The agency is also deleting the expanded definitions of terms like “automatically” and “single function of the trigger” that were added during the 2018 rulemaking.
This rule effectively restores the federal machine gun definition back to what it was before the 2018 bump stock ban. Importantly, ATF is still retaining the portions of federal law covering actual machine guns, machine gun conversion parts, frames, receivers, and combinations of parts intended to create machine guns.
For gun owners, this means bump stocks are no longer classified as machine guns under federal law and are no longer subject to NFA registration or federal machine gun possession restrictions. ATF also notes that approximately 965 bump stocks previously surrendered to the government may potentially be returned to their owners.
For manufacturers, retailers, and the firearms industry, the rule reopens the legal production and sale of bump stocks at the federal level. ATF estimates the change could restore more than $20 million annually in economic activity related to bump stock manufacturing and sales.
However, the rule does not override state laws. Several states still independently ban bump stocks, and possession may remain illegal in those jurisdictions even though the federal regulatory ban has been removed.
ATF emphasizes that this was not simply a policy decision by the agency. Instead, the rule was issued to comply with a binding Supreme Court ruling that limited ATF’s ability to expand firearm definitions beyond what Congress explicitly wrote into federal law.
Source: Read the Full Rule
3) Remove Triplicate Filing for Explosives Imports
The ATF has finalized a rule removing an outdated requirement that importers of plastic explosives submit paperwork in triplicate when filing import applications.
Previously, importers were required to attach three separate copies of a written certification statement when submitting ATF Form 6 applications for importing certain plastic explosives. ATF says this requirement existed because older paper-based processing systems once relied on multiple physical copies of forms and supporting documents.
Under the updated rule, importers still must provide the required certification statement under penalty of perjury, but they now only need to submit it once instead of three times. The underlying compliance and safety requirements remain fully in place.
The certification itself confirms either that the imported plastic explosive contains legally required detection agents or that the explosive qualifies for a limited exemption for research, testing, or training purposes. ATF says the change only removes duplicate paperwork and does not alter any import restrictions or safety regulations.
According to ATF, the rule reflects the agency’s transition toward electronic filing systems and modern digital document processing. Most import applications are now submitted electronically through ATF eForms, making multiple paper copies unnecessary.
ATF also noted that no plastic explosive import applications have been submitted during the past three years, making this a very niche administrative rule affecting only a small segment of the explosives industry. Typical FFLs, firearm businesses, and gun owners will see no impact from the change.
Overall, the rule is considered a procedural “housekeeping” update designed to simplify compliance and eliminate obsolete paperwork requirements without changing any substantive federal explosives laws.
Source: Read the Full Rule
5) Export Control Technical Updates
The ATF has issued a direct final rule updating its regulations to reflect modern export control responsibilities shared between the Department of State and the Department of Commerce.
For many years, ATF regulations primarily referenced the State Department for firearm and defense-related export controls. However, under the federal Export Control Reform initiative that took effect around 2020, some export authority for certain firearms, parts, and related items shifted to the Department of Commerce under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).
The updated rule simply revises ATF regulations to acknowledge that exporters may now deal with either the State Department or the Commerce Department depending on the specific item being exported. ATF says the goal is to reduce confusion and ensure the regulations accurately reflect the current federal export control structure already in place.
The rule adds references to the Department of Commerce throughout several ATF regulations related to importing, exporting, and temporary movement of firearms and defense articles. It also updates technical wording, punctuation, and agency references for clarity and consistency.
ATF specifically states the rule does not create new licensing requirements, additional compliance obligations, or new export restrictions. Businesses exporting firearms or related items are still required to comply with whichever federal agency already has jurisdiction over the item being exported.
For most gun owners, the rule will have little to no noticeable impact because it primarily affects importers, exporters, manufacturers, and businesses involved in international firearms trade. ATF also estimates the rule creates no measurable economic cost or operational burden because it simply updates existing references and procedures.
Overall, the rule is considered a technical modernization effort designed to align ATF regulations with the current federal export control system already being used across multiple agencies.
Source: Read the Full Rule
7) NFA Tax Reduction Implementation
ATF has finalized updates to its National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations to reflect new tax reductions passed by Congress under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).
Under the new law, the traditional $200 NFA tax stamp has been reduced to $0 for most NFA-regulated firearms. This includes silencers, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and Any Other Weapons (AOWs).
Machine guns and destructive devices are the only NFA items that still retain the standard $200 making and transfer tax.
ATF states this rule does not remove NFA regulation itself. Registration, background checks, approval requirements, fingerprints, photographs, and all existing NFA application procedures remain fully in effect. The change only eliminates the tax payment requirement for qualifying NFA items.
The rule updates ATF Forms 1 and 4 procedures to reflect the new $0 tax structure:
- Form 1: Making silencers, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs now requires a $0 tax payment.
- Form 4: Transferring silencers, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs now requires a $0 tax payment.
ATF also modernized its regulations to officially allow electronic tax stamps and digital approval markings instead of requiring traditional adhesive paper stamps.
According to ATF’s economic analysis, the agency expects the tax elimination to significantly increase NFA applications over the next decade. ATF estimates the change could result in more than $2.4 billion in tax savings transferred back to consumers and businesses over ten years.
The final rule officially takes effect on June 10, 2026, although the underlying statutory tax reductions became effective January 1, 2026.
Source: Read the Full Rule
2) Use eZ Check Instead of Paper Licenses
The ATF has finalized a rule allowing FFLs to verify another dealer’s license using ATF’s online “FFL eZ Check” system instead of requiring certified paper copies of licenses for dealer-to-dealer firearm transfers.
For years, FFLs technically had to request and maintain certified copies of another dealer’s license before shipping firearms, even though many dealers were already using the eZ Check website to confirm license validity. ATF says the old paper-based process created unnecessary delays, mailing costs, and administrative burdens.
Under the updated rule, dealers can now verify another FFL directly through the free online eZ Check system by confirming the license number, expiration date, and business address match the information provided by the receiving dealer. Certified paper copies are still allowed, but they are no longer the only acceptable verification method.
The rule also removes an older “45-day list” exception that previously allowed large multi-license businesses to rely on internal lists of licenses instead of verifying them individually. ATF says the exception is now outdated because the online system is widely available, regularly updated, and free to use.
According to ATF, the change modernizes a long-standing process while maintaining the same level of oversight and compliance verification. Dealers are still required to confirm the receiving FFL is valid before transferring firearms. They simply now have a faster digital option to do so.
ATF estimates the firearms industry could save more than $615,000 annually through reduced paperwork, postage, labor time, and administrative costs. The agency also estimates dealers could collectively save tens of thousands of work hours previously spent copying, mailing, and storing license documents.
For most gun owners, the rule will not create any noticeable changes directly. However, dealer-to-dealer firearm transfers may become faster and more efficient behind the scenes due to the simplified verification process.
Source: Read the Full Rule
4) Background Checks for NFA Makers (Formalized)
The ATF has finalized a rule officially adding NICS background checks into the written regulations for individuals applying to make NFA firearms using ATF Form 1.
While this sounds like a major policy change, ATF says the agency has already been conducting these background checks during the Form 1 approval process for years. The new rule simply updates the regulations to formally reflect the process already being used in practice.
Form 1 applications are commonly used when someone wants to legally make an NFA firearm such as a suppressor, short-barreled rifle (SBR), short-barreled shotgun (SBS), or other regulated firearm. Federal law already required ATF to deny applications if the applicant could not legally possess the firearm, but the regulations never explicitly stated that a NICS check had to be part of the review process.
The updated rule now makes the Form 1 “making” process consistent with the Form 4 “transfer” process, which already specifically references mandatory NICS background checks in the regulations. ATF says this change improves consistency and removes ambiguity within the agency’s NFA procedures.
For most gun owners and NFA applicants, there will be virtually no noticeable change. The rule does not create a new approval step, additional paperwork, longer waiting periods, or new compliance requirements because the checks were already being performed during application reviews.
ATF also states the rule does not expand firearm prohibitions or create new restrictions on NFA ownership. Instead, the agency describes the change as a technical clarification designed to formally align the regulations with existing federal law and current ATF practices.
For FFLs and the firearms industry, ATF expects little to no operational impact. The agency specifically notes that the rule does not impose new recordkeeping requirements, compliance costs, or administrative burdens on businesses.
Source: Read the Full Rule
6) Contraband Cigarette Rule Expansion
ATF has finalized a major update to federal contraband tobacco regulations by lowering the threshold for illegal cigarette trafficking and expanding the rules to include smokeless tobacco products.
Under the updated rule, the federal threshold for contraband cigarettes drops from more than 60,000 cigarettes to more than 10,000 cigarettes. ATF says this change is intended to better target modern trafficking operations that often move smaller quantities to avoid detection.
The rule also officially expands federal contraband trafficking regulations to cover smokeless tobacco products, including snuff, chewing tobacco, and similar products. Possession of more than 500 single-unit consumer-sized cans or packages of untaxed smokeless tobacco can now qualify as contraband under federal rules.
ATF states the changes are designed to strengthen enforcement against organized trafficking networks that profit from moving untaxed tobacco products across state lines. The agency specifically references concerns about criminal organizations using tobacco trafficking to generate revenue.
The final rule adds new recordkeeping and reporting requirements for distributors involved in large tobacco transactions. Businesses distributing more than the threshold amounts must maintain detailed commercial records for five years, including shipment information, inventory details, customer information, and distribution records.
ATF also modernizes the regulations by officially allowing electronic recordkeeping and cloud-based storage systems, provided records remain accessible to ATF investigators when requested.
Although the rule technically includes monthly reporting requirements for certain delivery-sale businesses, ATF acknowledges that these provisions are largely obsolete because the PACT Act already severely restricted interstate tobacco delivery sales years ago.
The rule additionally updates forfeiture procedures, inspection authority, and enforcement language to include smokeless tobacco alongside cigarettes throughout the regulations.
According to ATF, the rule primarily impacts tobacco distributors, wholesalers, manufacturers, and businesses involved in large-scale tobacco sales. The agency states it does not expect major costs for industry because most businesses already maintain these records electronically during normal operations.
Source: Read the Full Rule
