The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has rolled out a sweeping regulatory reform package in response to President Trump's executive order on Second Amendment rights. The goal is to cut red tape for law-abiding gun owners and businesses while clarifying long-standing ambiguities in federal firearms rules.
Much of the public discussion has mischaracterized the scope and intent of these proposals. The agency's own leadership, including a former law enforcement veteran with 34 years on the job, stresses that the reforms are about updating decades-old procedures and aligning with recent court rulings—not loosening safeguards. The changes would, for example, prevent the kind of enforcement abuses seen in the prior administration, when legitimate firearms dealers were shut down for minor paperwork errors.
Mental health disqualifiers: narrowing an overbroad rule
One of the most misunderstood proposals addresses who is barred from owning firearms due to mental illness. The 1968 Gun Control Act originally targeted a narrow group—people with severe, permanent intellectual disabilities—not the roughly one in five American adults who experience a mental health condition each year. But in the 1990s, the definition was expanded in ways that swept in many who posed no threat.
For instance, veterans who had a fiduciary appointed by the Department of Veterans Affairs to manage benefit payments were automatically disarmed, even if they had no other functional impairment. More than 200,000 veterans lost their gun rights this way. Similarly, the Social Security Administration's policies led to retirees and disability recipients being stripped of their rights. Congress later stepped in to stop these practices.
ATF's proposal would bring the regulatory definition in line with that congressional judgment. People who require guardianship due to mental illness or intellectual disability, and those committed to a mental institution, would still be prohibited from owning guns. But those who merely need help managing government benefits would no longer be disqualified.
Critics have falsely claimed the rule would arm the mentally ill or lead to mass-casualty events. ATF's cost-benefit analysis did note a range of potential risks, including a remote possibility of mass-casualty events—but disclosing the full spectrum of costs and benefits, even unlikely ones, is standard regulatory practice. The comment period exists precisely to examine such scenarios in full context.
Online firearm sales: stronger verification, not weaker checks
Another proposal addresses in-state, non-over-the-counter firearm sales, which Congress authorized in 1968 under strict conditions: the dealer must be in the same state as the buyer, must notify the buyer's local police chief, and must wait seven days before delivering the firearm. ATF's regulations, updated after the Brady Act, assumed identity verification had to happen in person. But secure ID verification technology has since made online identity checks routine.
Some have described this as weakening background checks or benefiting a particular retailer. That's false. ATF says it had no engagement with any retailer in developing the rule. Every transaction would still require the same background check as an in-person sale, plus additional safeguards: notice to local law enforcement, a seven-day waiting period, and a two-step identity verification process. That includes live videoconferencing for facial comparison and an ID validity check through a separate federally approved service provider. In short, a buyer would prove their identity twice through independent channels, rather than once to a store clerk.
Claims that the proposal would let domestic abusers or violent criminals bypass background checks are also unfounded. No proposed rule touches the federal categories of prohibited persons, and every covered transaction still requires a background check. Dealers also retain their obligation to flag bulk buys, repeated purchases of identical firearms, and other signs of potential trafficking.
Repeal of the 'Engaged in the Business' rule
Separately, ATF's proposal to repeal the Engaged in the Business rule has been falsely portrayed as gutting background checks. That 2024 rule, issued by the previous administration, expanded the definition of who qualifies as a licensed dealer, effectively broadening background checks by regulation. A federal judge has already vacated the rule nationwide, finding it legally flawed. ATF's own analysis found the rule not only failed to increase background checks or licensee numbers, but actually decreased the number of licensee applications.
The reform package also includes updates to other outdated procedures, some of which haven't been revised in decades. The agency says these changes would help it focus on violent crime instead of paperwork enforcement. As the former law enforcement official put it, streamlining the regulatory system without weakening any actual safeguard is good government—and the public is better served by an accurate account of what the ATF is doing than an alarmed one.
The comment period on most of these proposals closes early this month. ATF encourages anyone with questions to read the full rules and submit comments. The agency maintains that these reforms will reduce burdens on law-abiding citizens and businesses while preserving—and in some cases enhancing—public safety.
