The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has released the text of more than a dozen proposed rules, after releasing the first tranche earlier this week.
You can find the latest submissions to the Federal Register here. Among the drafts released today is the rule revising Non-Over-the-Counter Firearms Transaction Requirements. Based on the ATF’s summary of the proposed rule, there was a lot of speculation and excitement over the possibility that the ATF would be allowing in-state purchases of firearms to take place without having to visit an FFL to fill out the Form 4473 in person, and the good news for gun owners is that is indeed what the agency is intending.
Federal law permits federal firearms licensees (“FFLs”) to transfer firearms to a person residing in the same state but who does not appear in person. These are “non-over-the-counter” (“NOTC”) sales. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) proposes amending Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations on NOTC sales. These proposed changes would remove restrictions limiting this option to background check-exempt transfers. The proposed rule would permit FFLs to conduct NOTC transfers while complying with background check requirements and adds remote identity proofing and electronic notices to chief law enforcement officers.These changes would provide greater flexibility for individuals lawfully purchasing firearms.
Under the proposed rule, buyers would still have to go through a background check, but FFLs would be able to remotely verify their identity and conduct a NICS check without the buyer being physically present. Based on my reading of the rule, it sounds like gun owners would most likely have to use a service like ID.me as part of the ID verification process, along with FFLs confirming the buyer’s ID matches the identity on their online verification by physically examining those documents using remote videoconferencing software.
Again, this would only apply to in-state firearm transfers, so it wouldn’t lead to nationwide direct-to-consumer sales from gun manufacturers where firearms could be shipped directly from the gun maker to your home. It would also likely require those who want to purchase a firearm without visiting the seller in person to provide a third party with their identification, which some gun owners will undoubtably find to be overly intrusive.
Participating in the system is entirely optional, however. The proposed rule won’t impact anyone who prefers in-person transactions.
Another proposed rule worth mentioning here is the ATFs proposed revision of the definitions of “mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution.” As the agency argues in its proposal, the current definition of “mental defective” is overbroad because it “encompasses individuals who do not suffer from the kinds of mental disabilities that fell within the term… at the time the GCA was enacted.”
Specifically, the regulation —at least as the 1997 final rule has been interpreted — encompasses individuals who have narrow functional deficits, such as the inability only to manage financial benefits. Those with isolated functional deficits are not the kind of individuals who were understood to be mentally defective as that term was used in the GCA. Nor are such individuals the kind of irresponsible or dangerous persons who Congress sought to prohibit from possessing firearms under sections 922(g)(4) and (d)(4).
This would bring the ATF in line with Congress’s prohibition on the VA using the appointment of a fiduciary as reason to declare veterans prohibited persons unable to lawfully possess firearms. At the same time, the ATF wants to change the definition of “committed to a mental institution” by inserting the word “involuntary” to the current definition of ““[a] formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority.”
The current regulation states that the term “includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily” and “does not include . . . a voluntary admission to a mental institution.” 27 CFR 478.11. Accordingly, the position of ATF and the courts has long been that voluntary admissions of any kind do not qualify under the statute. Consequently, ATF is adding “involuntary” as a core part of the definition.
That’s a relatively minor change, but anything that helps to alleviate the concern that voluntarily seeking help with mental health will lead to the loss of our right to keep and bear arms is a good thing, in my opinion.
I haven’t had a chance to do a deep dive into the other rules that will impact gun owners, gun makers, and gun sellers, but what I’ve seen to date looks pretty good. However…
If you saw all these new ATF rules and were going:
“… these are almost all really good… what’s the catch?”HERE IT IS!
Firearms Electronic Record-keeping rule is straight up a federal gun registry.The proposal requires all electronic firearm records to be searchable using… pic.twitter.com/lOYd30VZ2I
— ✳️Ⓐ Armed Joy 🔫💣 (@ArmedJ0y) May 7, 2026
Again, I haven’t had a chance to read through this in detail, but based on Armed Joy’s take this should be a non-starter. I can understand why ATF would want to have a centralized system like this, but it would also be ripe for abuse and easy enough to turn into a gun registry, at least when it comes to who purchased firearms at retail or those subject to background checks for private gun transfers.
We’ll have 90 days to comment once the rules are officially published, and I hope that gun owners will weigh in on every one of the proposals. Whether you support or oppose a particular rule, make sure your voice is heard.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
