Tweet
I don't completely understand what's going on with ATF's new proposal - just a counter to lawsuits wanting elimination of NFA altogether? Sounds rather like just a different way to get a lot of information on people. Lyman, what's your take? SW
-
-
Hope you or Lyman will outline what this " proposal" is...... -
This vid describes some of what might - or might not - change. On the face of it, it doesn't sound too bad, but ATF are sneaky. I just don't trust them. SW
(New Rule 9/34) ATF JUST Proposed a HUGE Change for All NFA Owners!Comment
-
I usually go to GOA to see their take because they are fairly rabid and unyielding about gun rights, they tend to read between the lines on changes like this and pick out the most egregious parts that could adversely affect our rights. As part of the 34 new rules package is a change in the "out of business" records retention provision. Below is the copy/paste comment that GOA recommends that Americans send to the ATF during the comment period:
"I join Gun Owners of America in strongly opposing ATF’s proposed rule, Firearm Records Retention Periods (RIN 1140–AA95), to the extent that it would continue requiring decades-long retention of firearm transaction records, and allow ATF to maintain out-of-business (“OOB”) dealer records for additional decades. While the proposal appears intended to partially roll back the Biden Administration’s “forever retention” policy adopted in 2022, merely returning to a 20- or 30-year standard is insufficient to protect gun owners’ privacy and constitutional rights.
The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (“FOPA”) prohibits post-1986 regulations that expand the transfer to or maintenance of firearm transaction records in government-controlled facilities. Any retention period exceeding the framework of 20 years that pre-existed FOPA would violate both the text and spirit of 18 U.S.C. ? 926(a). Moreover, the Second Amendment does not tolerate the creation or preservation of a de facto federal registry of law-abiding gun owners much less one that exists for decades on end.
ATF’s own historical findings demonstrate that the law-enforcement utility of decades-old records is minimal. In its 1985 rulemaking, ATF acknowledged that trace usefulness sharply declines over time, especially after 10–15 years. Yet under the current framework, records may effectively be retained for generations—first by dealers, and then by ATF after a dealer goes out of business. Such a system transforms temporary business records into functionally permanent federal surveillance files of Americans’ firearm ownership.
ATF’s “new era of reform” should not merely be about returning to the pre-Biden status quo. Indeed, if ATF were to select 30 years as the retention, then this rulemaking would not even accomplish that. This would represent an utter failure in the eyes of gun owners by this Administration. ATF needs to make affirmative progress in the right direction—protecting gun owners by reducing record retention periods as much as possible.
Accordingly, I agree with GOA that ATF should adopt the shortest possible retention period permitted by law, ideally zero years. At a minimum, any retention period imposed on FFLs must also apply to ATF’s OOB records, with mandatory destruction upon expiration of that same period. ATF should use this rulemaking to dismantle—not preserve—the infrastructure of a national gun owner registry"
So it seems GOA is willing to throw out the baby with the bath water on this proposed rule if I'm reading it correctly and maybe that's a good thing since de facto registry kept by the government is completely unconstitutional.
Last edited by TSimonetti; 05-14-2026, 03:00.Comment
-
sorry, our election issues here in VA and kept me rather busy, and not had time to check in here like i should, or read to much into fed rules proposed,
we have our own headache of stupid Democraps trying to ban everything here, and by stupid I mean they rely on Chatgtp,,,,,
FWIW, I did read a proposed change to the 4473 that was very good,
Comment
-
I saw something about speifying gender of the buyer was on the way out - hopefully the need to state if you're Hispanic or non-Hispanic is, too. Which I never understood in the 1st place. SWComment
Comment