Armory Sponsor
ATF Rule Changes Discussion Thread (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/30/2026 8:11:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: RolandofGilead][Edited]
|
Thanks to DD1801 and Grondike for providing some amplifying information. From the ATF Website. Looks like we're getting a few wins boys. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform 1140-AA98: Removing Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces" - NPRM ATF is proposing to formally rescind regulatory changes made in 2023 regarding firearms equipped with stabilizing braces. Multiple federal courts have found that the 2023 rule as codified in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and the rule has been enjoined, stayed, or vacated across numerous jurisdictions. This proposal removes regulatory language that has been largely unenforceable, restoring the regulatory definitions to be consistent with the underlying statutory definitions. 1140-AB01: Revising Regs Defining "Engaged in the Business" as a Dealer in Firearms - NPRM ATF is revising regulatory changes it made to the definition of the 'engaged in the business' of dealing in firearms. The rule rescinds certain provisions of the definition of 'engaged in the business.' The rescinded changes have not produced the anticipated outcomes in terms of Federal Firearms License applications, administrative licensing actions, civil forfeitures, or other anticipated enforcement metrics. The rule retains the definition of 'engaged in the business' as specifically revised and codified by Congress in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), ensuring that ATF's regulatory definitions reflect the statutory language Congress enacted. 1140-AA60: Revising Machine Gun Definition in Response to Supreme Court Decision - FINAL RULE ATF is removing two sentences from its three regulatory definitions of "machine gun" that previously incorporated bump stocks into those definitions. This action responds directly to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Garland v. Cargill (2024), which held that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks do not satisfy the statutory definition of "machine gun" under the National Firearms Act. This rescission aligns ATF's regulatory text with the statute and the Court's binding legal interpretation. 1140-AA87: Removing Youth Handgun Safety Act Notice - NPRM ATF is proposing to rescind 27 CFR 478.103 to remove the requirement for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to post a sign (ATF I 5300.1) and provide a written notification (ATF I 5300.2) to each handgun purchaser regarding the Youth Handgun Safety Act. This 1998 regulation was established to inform purchasers of the 1994 Youth Handgun Safety Act. The proposed recission reduces an unnecessary burden on FFLs to inform purchasers about a law that has been in place for over 30 years and is now readily accessible. 1140-AA89: Interstate Transport and Temporary Export of National Firearms Act - NPRM ATF is proposing to update the administrative process for transporting lawfully registered National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms within the United States. Under the proposal, individuals transporting NFA firearms for short-term purposes (365 days or fewer) would no longer be required to submit advance notice to ATF or await approval before departing. Individuals transporting NFA firearms for long-term purposes (more than 365 days) or permanent relocation would still submit notice but would not need to await ATF approval before transporting. This change to ATF Form 5320.20 (Form 20), per 27 CFR 478.28, is intended to remove an unnecessary regulatory burden on law-abiding NFA firearm owners without affecting applicable federal, state, or local legal requirements. 1140-AB00: Joint Registration for Spouses under the National Firearms Act - NPRM ATF is proposing to allow married couples to file a joint application as makers and/or transferees of NFA-regulated firearms. Under current regulations, spouses who wish to jointly possess an NFA firearm typically establish a legal trust to do so, a process that involves legal expense and administrative complexity. This proposal would allow both spouses to be registered jointly as possessors without creating a trust. Under a joint registration, the transfer of a firearm between spouses would not constitute a separate NFA transfer, reducing both administrative burden and cost for law-abiding NFA firearm owners. 1140-AA65: Removing CLEO Notification Under the National Firearms Act - NPRM ATF is proposing to remove the requirement for an applicant to forward to the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of his or her locality a copy of their National Firearms Act (NFA) application to make or transfer a firearm as well as a copy of the Responsible Person Questionnaire (ATF Form 5320.23) required to be completed. The requirement to forward these documents to CLEOs has faced sustained legal challenges and has not achieved its intended public safety outcomes. 1140-AA73: Clarifying Interstate Transportation of Firearms under the Gun Control Act - NPRM ATF is proposing to clarify regulations that govern the interstate transportation of firearms by lawful owners. The proposed rule formally recognizes that common, reasonably necessary activities during travel including overnight stops, vehicle maintenance, refueling, emergency stops, and medical treatments are considered as a necessary part of "transport," and are therefore covered under the Firearms Owners' Protection Act's interstate transport protections. The proposed rule also updates requirements for transporting ammunition and firearm accessories and clarifies requirements for securing firearms during transit. 1140-AA75: Transferring Machine Guns Between Qualified Licensees - NPRM ATF is proposing to simplify regulatory requirements for machine gun transfers between licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers in two specific, limited circumstances: 1) when demonstrating firearms to government entities, and 2) when a licensee is discontinuing a business. The proposed changes update implementing regulations to more closely align with the authority provided by the Gun Control Act and ATF parameters established in a January 2023 Open Letter to prevent misuse of the dealer sales sample exception. This reduces unnecessary regulatory complexity for these narrow commercial transactions while maintaining all applicable NFA requirements and federal licensing controls. 1140-AA76: Clarifying Special (Occupational) Tax Payments Per Business Activity - NPRM ATF is proposing to clarify that Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) who pay the Special Occupational Taxpayer (SOT) fee under the National Firearms Act (NFA) owe one SOT per business activity (manufacturing, importing, or dealing) conducted at a given location, regardless of the number of Gun Control Act (GCA) licenses the FFL holds to carry out such activity at that location. This is a regulatory clarification designed to provide licensees with a clear, consistent understanding of their NFA tax obligation. 1140-AA74: Removing Triplicate Filing Requirement for Importing Plastic Explosives - FINAL RULE ATF is amending its regulations governing the importation of plastic explosives to remove the requirement that importers submit the required attestation in triplicate when filing a Form 6 import application. ATF's current processing procedures do not require three copies of this document, making the triplicate requirement an administrative artifact with no current operational function. This change eliminates redundant paperwork without affecting any substantive requirement governing the importation of plastic explosives. 1140-AA93: Firearm Activities in Foreign Trade Zones, Customs-Bonded Warehouses - NPRM ATF is proposing to amend the definition of "importation" in its Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations to create a parallel exclusion from import requirements for items brought into Customs Bonded Warehouses (CBWs), matching the exclusion that already exists for Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs). The proposal also removes a restriction that currently limits permissible Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) activities in FTZs and CBWs to storage only, expanding the range of lawful activities FFLs may conduct on items held in these facilities. Together, these changes reduce regulatory ambiguity for importers and licensees operating within international trade environments. 1140-AA96: Importing Dual-Use Frames, Receivers, or Barrels - NPRM ATF is proposing to clarify that Federal Firearms Licensees may lawfully import firearm barrels and frames/receivers capable of being used on both sporting and non-sporting firearms provided that an identified sporting configuration for the barrel or frame/receiver exists at the time of importation. The proposed rule also clarifies that once lawfully imported, a dual-use barrel or frame/receiver may be incorporated into the assembly of a sporting, non-sporting, or NFA-regulated firearm, subject to compliance with all other applicable federal firearms laws. 1140-AA97: Importing Training Rounds - NPRM ATF is proposing to formally clarify in regulation that "training rounds" including inert, marking, or simulated-projectile products used for training purposes do not meet the statutory definition of "ammunition" under the Gun Control Act (GCA) and are therefore not regulated under the GCA or the Arms Export Control Act provided the round is not for a firearm. This codification provides regulatory certainty for importers, manufacturers, and law enforcement suppliers who produce, acquire, or distribute these products. 1140-AA68: Converting Temporary to Permanent Imports for Defense Articles - NPRM ATF is proposing to create a formal administrative process through which a firearms importer may convert a temporarily imported firearm to permanent import status by submitting an ATF Form 6 application when a temporary import authorization has expired or is otherwise no longer operative. Under current regulations, importers whose temporary import authorization expires must re-export, permanently reimport, or destroy the firearm options that impose significant cost and logistical burden. The proposed rule fills this regulatory gap with a streamlined conversion pathway while maintaining all applicable import controls. 1140-AA70: Allowing Makers to Adopt Certain Markings for National Firearms Act - NPRM ATF is proposing to allow individuals who make National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms by altering existing firearms to adopt markings already applied by the original manufacturer rather than applying additional, redundant markings. Because the original importer and manufacturer's serial number and markings are already required by statute and regulation, this proposal eliminates a duplicative regulatory requirement while ensuring NFA marking requirements are satisfied. ATF has previously accommodated this practice through individual variances; this proposed rule codifies that accommodation into regulation to provide consistent, clear guidance across the industry. 1140-AA84: Clarifying Delivery to a Common or Contract Carrier When Transporting Firearms - NPRM ATF is proposing to clarify that, for purposes of the Gun Control Act's provisions governing the delivery of firearms and ammunition to common or contract carriers, a person traveling aboard a common or contract carrier while personally maintaining direct control over a firearm or ammunition does not constitute "delivery" of that firearm or ammunition to the carrier. This clarification addresses longstanding regulatory ambiguity regarding the obligations of law-abiding travelers who retain physical possession of a firearm during common carrier travel. 1140-AB04: Revising Definitions of "Adjudicated as a Mental Defective" and "Committed to a Mental Institution" - NPRM ATF is proposing to modernize the regulatory definition of "mental defective" the term used in the Gun Control Act to identify a category of persons prohibited from possessing firearms to reflect current medical and legal standards. The proposed rule would refine the term "mental defective," associating it with "intellectually disabled" and clarify that a person receiving assistance in only one functional area (such as financial management) would not, on that basis alone, be considered prohibited under this definition. The proposal also clarifies existing prohibitions. Specifically, individuals committed to a mental institution resulting from a determination that an individual is a danger to themselves or others or is found not guilty by reason of insanity, properly fall within the definition of "committed to a mental institution," and not within the definition of "mental defective." 1140-AA85: Clarifying Exceptions to the Brady Act Background Check Requirement - NPRM ATF is proposing to clarify the regulatory standards that govern when a state-issued firearms permit qualifies as an alternative to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The proposed rule makes targeted regulatory adjustments to require confirmation that the state permit is both valid and unexpired and that the language of the state statute conforms with certain requirements established by Congress. The proposed rule provides clearer guidance for Federal Firearms Licensees operating in states where such permits are recognized. 1140-AA64: Selecting Biological Sex on ATF Forms - NPRM ATF is proposing to amend its regulations to clarify that, in response to questions about sex on ATF forms, individuals should select their biological sex. This refers to the individual's immutable biological classification as either male or female and does not include the concept of gender identity. These are clarifying amendments to align ATF's regulatory forms with the President's signed Executive Order 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government and do not alter any substantive eligibility criteria. 1140-AA69: Definition of Business Premises - NPRM ATF is proposing to clarify the regulatory definition of 'business premises' for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to explicitly include properties that adjoin each other or that are adjacent to each other and share a common parking lot, sidewalk, or road. This clarification is intended to resolve regulatory ambiguity for licensees whose operations span multiple adjacent buildings or parcels and to provide a consistent, clear standard for FFL licensing determinations. 1140-AA78: Firearms Transactions and Straw Purchases - NPRM ATF is proposing to amend its regulations to provide greater regulatory clarity around the federal prohibition on straw purchases. A straw purchase effectively hides the identity of the actual purchaser/ultimate recipient of the firearm and circumvents the regulatory requirements for a firearm transfer by forgoing background checks and impeding the ability of law enforcement to trace guns involved in the commission of a crime to the true purchaser/ultimate recipient. The proposed rule is intended to provide clearer guidance for licensees, including which transactions are not considered straw purchases, thereby supporting enforcement efforts against true straw purchases. 1140-AA88: Creating a Definition of "Willfully" for Firearms Violations - NPRM ATF is proposing to formally define the term "willfully" in its implementing regulations as it applies to violations of the Gun Control Act, specifically in the context of ATF's authority to suspend or revoke a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) license or impose civil penalties. The proposed definition would implement the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bryan v. United States, under which a person acts "willfully" when they know their conduct is unlawful, even if unaware of the specific statutory provision being violated. 1140-AA79: Conforming Change for Approving a Making Application - FINAL RULE ATF is issuing a final rule to formally codify in regulation the existing practice of conducting National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) checks as part of the National Firearms Act (NFA) approval process for individuals seeking to make NFA firearms. ATF already conducts these checks as part of its standard processing. This final rule aligns the regulatory text with existing statutory requirements and ATF's current operational practice, ensuring the regulatory framework accurately reflects how background checks are being administered. 1140-AA66: Export Control Reform - Conforming References to Department of Commerce - FINAL RULE ATF is issuing a final rule to make technical and administrative clarifying amendments to its regulations in 27 CFR parts 447 and 479, which control the import and export of firearms, ammunition, and defense articles under the Arms Export Control Act. These changes correspond to regulatory changes previously made by the departments of Commerce and State. The rule adds references to reflect that certain transactions now fall under Commerce's export and temporary import jurisdiction. These changes respond to actions by the departments of Commerce and State to divide export and temporary import controls between those agencies. The rule also makes minor technical amendments for clarity. No substantive policy changes are made. 1140-AA91: Update to Proscribed Countries for Import Restrictions - NPRM ATF is proposing to update the import restrictions applicable to certain countries under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The proposed rule would remove the existing, static list of proscribed countries from which ATF denies applications to permanently import defense articles and services, replacing it with a dynamic reference to the Department of State's list of proscribed countries. This ensures ATF's import restrictions remain current and consistent with State Department designations without requiring separate ATF rulemaking each time the list changes. The rule also proposes to remove the list of former Soviet countries from which ATF currently denies applications to permanently import most firearms and ammunition, retaining only the Russian Federation as a proscribed country of origin for these imports. 1140-AA77: Adding Component Definitions Under the Arms Export Control Act - NPRM ATF is proposing to amend the language in its specialized subset of regulations under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) to align with Department of State terminology already in use in the United States Munitions List (USML). By aligning terminology used to describe defense articles, this technical update would reduce ambiguity for Federal Firearms Licensees, Federal Explosives Licensees, and defense industry stakeholders. 1140-AA31: Implementing PATRIOT Act Improvements: Contraband Cigarettes and Smokeless - FINAL RULE ATF is issuing a final rule implementing provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 related to trafficking in contraband cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The rule reduces the quantity threshold triggering jurisdiction under the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA) from more than 60,000 cigarettes to more than 10,000; extends CCTA coverage to contraband smokeless tobacco for the first time; expands recordkeeping requirements and the class of persons subject to them; imposes reporting requirements on persons engaged in delivery sales above specified thresholds; and requires that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco seized and forfeited under the CCTA be used in law enforcement operations or destroyed. The rule does not apply to electronic cigarettes or other vaping products. 1140-AA83: Changes to National Firearms Act Tax Remittance Provisions - FINAL RULE ATF is issuing a final rule to amend its National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations to reflect changes made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to reduce the tax remittance rate for certain NFA firearms. This final rule is necessary to align regulatory text with statutory requirements and implement the legal changes. Commenting: Removing CLEO Notification Under the National Firearms Act https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ATF-2026-0007 Interstate Transport and Temporary Export of National Firearms Act Firearms https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ATF-2026-0068 Allowing Makers to Adopt Certain Markings for National Firearms Act Firearms (removal of redundant engraving requirement) https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2026-0005-0001 Transferring Machine Guns Between Qualified Licensees https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ATF-2026-0006 Removing Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces" https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ATF-2026-0335 Joint Registration for Spouses under the National Firearms Act https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ATF-2026-0336 Clarifying Interstate Transportation of Firearms under the Gun Control Act https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ATF-2026-0133 How to Make Your Comments Effective Effective public comments often have one or more of the following characteristics: (1) an introduction where you explain why you are interested in the regulation and highlight any experience with the subject of the rule that may distinguish your comment; (2) a background section where you clearly identify the relevant part of the regulation you are commenting on; (3) analysis that lays out your argument and evidence (including with clear citations to any helpful research) for example, how the action impacts you and what you care about; whether the agency anticipated or estimated these impacts correctly; any unintended consequences of this approach that the agency did not consider; and what additional details from the agency would help you better understand the action; (4) recommendations describing your suggestions to the agency and identifying specific changes you would advise for example, providing a different way of addressing the problem the agency may not have considered; and (5) a conclusion which recaps your main argument and lists your recommendations again. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By willi3d: Wake me when they finally decide to ditch 922r. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. No shit. "Trump failed, OMG!" |
I love a good double entendre.
|
Originally Posted By wildturl1:
It’s a start. Let’s see what actually happens next. Democrats will change it all back? |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By trails-end: No shit. "Trump failed, OMG!" We'd all love for the ATF to be abolished, all I'm saying is lets take whatever wins come our way instead of bitching and complaining about things that will actually impact us positively. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By MallNinja531:
Not having to file for a permission slip to take NFA items across state lines would definitely be a welcome addition.  |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314:
Where are you seeing that? The website says to be signed 4/29/2026. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: Where are you seeing that? The website says to be signed 4/29/2026. Originally Posted By Mike_314: Originally Posted By doubleshot00: Sounds like this is months away from actually coming into effect. The website says to be signed 4/29/2026. Usually a comment period then a date is set. But this is the ATF so they can do whatever they want i guess. Also a big thread on GD but its a smorgasbord of BS in there. https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/ATF-preparing-to-release-multiple-Notices-of-Proposed-Rulemaking-and-Final-Rules-3PM-Eastern/5-2842702/ |
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: No shit what? Did you quote the wrong post? We'd all love for the ATF to be abolished, all I'm saying is lets take whatever wins come our way instead of bitching and complaining about things that will actually impact us positively. Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By trails-end: No shit. "Trump failed, OMG!" No shit what? Did you quote the wrong post? We'd all love for the ATF to be abolished, all I'm saying is lets take whatever wins come our way instead of bitching and complaining about things that will actually impact us positively. I was agreeing with you. Trump is the only president to make positive changes for gun owners in our lifetimes. We'll never get everything we want, like absolute 2A, but it's progress. |
I love a good double entendre.
I too am lost, I feel double-crossed & I'm sick of
Joined:
Mar 2008
Posts:
5869
EE: 100% (613)
MI, USA
|
Originally Posted By bluedog82: No need to engrave SBRs would be sweet. 100%. I’ve been dragging my feet on getting 5 receivers engraved, I’m going to hold off a bit longer to see where that goes. |
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson
|
Originally Posted By doubleshot00: Usually a comment period then a date is set. But this is the ATF so they can do whatever they want i guess. Also a big thread on GD but its a smorgasbord of BS in there. https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/ATF-preparing-to-release-multiple-Notices-of-Proposed-Rulemaking-and-Final-Rules-3PM-Eastern/5-2842702/ |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By trails-end: I was agreeing with you. Trump is the only president to make positive changes for gun owners in our lifetimes. We'll never get everything we want, like absolute 2A, but it's progress. Agreed though, a win is a win. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By MallNinja531: Not having to file for a permission slip to take NFA items across state lines would definitely be a welcome addition. When does the new rule go into effect for not having to wait after submitting? |
David Mamet said almost two decades ago: In order for modern leftists and progressives to continue advancing a radical and extreme political ideology, they must pretend not to know things.
|
Some good things in there that will make life easier (less paperwork, no need to engrave). For the interstate approval: "Under the proposal, individuals transporting NFA firearms for short-term purposes (365 days or fewer) would no longer be required to submit advance notice to ATF" The current process does not allow anything more that 365 days to be approved so this is complete (and welcome switch). I have a bunch of new SBRs I need to "make" so the engraving thing will save hassle and money. |
|
Originally Posted By trails-end: 1140-AA70: Allowing Makers to Adopt Certain Markings for National Firearms Act - NPRM Does this mean no maker marking required? I believe for existing firearms with a serial number, yes. So taking an AR pistol to an SBR wouldn’t require any engraving. |
|
Originally Posted By bluedog82: I believe for existing firearms with a serial number, yes. So taking an AR pistol to an SBR wouldn’t require any engraving. Originally Posted By bluedog82: Originally Posted By trails-end: 1140-AA70: Allowing Makers to Adopt Certain Markings for National Firearms Act - NPRM Does this mean no maker marking required? I believe for existing firearms with a serial number, yes. So taking an AR pistol to an SBR wouldn’t require any engraving. I just had 3 engraved 2 weeks ago.  Those will get painted. |
I love a good double entendre.
|
Originally Posted By doubleshot00: Yeah i HATE the GD so bad. It makes all gun owners look like basement dwelling tards. Apparently there was supposed be an update from the ATF on this today but cant find it. https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-bureau#documents |
|
1140-AA85: Clarifying Exceptions to the Brady Act Background Check Requirement - NPRM ATF is proposing to clarify the regulatory standards that govern when a state-issued firearms permit qualifies as an alternative to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The proposed rule makes targeted regulatory adjustments to require confirmation that the state permit is both valid and unexpired and that the language of the state statute conforms with certain requirements established by Congress. The proposed rule provides clearer guidance for Federal Firearms Licensees operating in states where such permits are recognized. This fucks over 18-20 years olds who jump through the hoops to get their state's LTC and will then get fucked by NICS with an auto delay. |
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: Keep checking here for the full published proposed rules: https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-bureau#documents |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
i didn't understand this one "1140-AA76: Clarifying Special (Occupational) Tax Payments Per Business Activity - NPRM ATF is proposing to clarify that Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) who pay the Special Occupational Taxpayer (SOT) fee under the National Firearms Act (NFA) owe one SOT per business activity (manufacturing, importing, or dealing) conducted at a given location, regardless of the number of Gun Control Act (GCA) licenses the FFL holds to carry out such activity at that location. This is a regulatory clarification designed to provide licensees with a clear, consistent understanding of their NFA tax obligation. " So I asked grok on expert... This is a proposed clarification (not yet a final rule) from the ATF, designated as RIN 1140-AA76. It was released on April 29, 2026, as part of a large package of 34 regulatory reforms aimed at reducing burdens on law-abiding Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and gun owners. Quick Background on the Taxes Involved •Gun Control Act (GCA) licenses (the regular FFLs you’re probably familiar with, like Type 01 dealer, Type 07 manufacturer, Type 08 importer, etc.) are required under the 1968 Gun Control Act to engage in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in firearms. •National Firearms Act (NFA) Special Occupational Tax (SOT) is a separate annual tax under the 1934 National Firearms Act. It applies specifically to FFLs who deal in, manufacture, or import NFA items (suppressors, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, machine guns, AOWs, etc.). •Rates (per year, per location): $500 for dealers; $1,000 for manufacturers/importers (reduced to $500 if your business had under $500,000 in gross receipts the prior year). •You pay via ATF Form 5630.7 and get a stamp for each qualifying location/activity. •You must already hold the appropriate GCA FFL(s) to engage in the business; the SOT is the extra NFA-specific occupational tax on top of that. Under existing regulations (27 CFR § 479.31–479.39), the SOT is owed per business activity (manufacturing, importing, or dealing) per physical location. If you do more than one of those three activities at the same premises, you pay separate SOTs for each activity. Storage-only locations generally don’t trigger extra tax. What the Proposed Rule Actually Changes (or Clarifies)The ATF is not raising taxes, adding new requirements, or changing the rates or locations rule. It is simply clarifying how the SOT interacts with multiple GCA licenses:FFLs owe one SOT per business activity (manufacturing OR importing OR dealing) conducted at a given location regardless of how many different GCA licenses the FFL holds that authorize that same activity at that location. Example of the old ambiguity this fixes:You operate at one address and hold:A Type 07 FFL (manufacturer of firearms), and A Type 01 FFL (dealer). Both licenses allow you to manufacture and deal in NFA firearms at that same location. Previously, it was unclear (or at least inconsistently interpreted by some) whether you owed two SOTs for manufacturing (one for each GCA license type) plus another for dealing. Under the proposed clarification: You would owe only one SOT for manufacturing at that location and one SOT for dealing at that location total of two, not three or more. The extra GCA license type doesn’t create an extra SOT obligation for the same activity.This prevents accidental overpayment and gives every FFL a single, bright-line rule instead of case-by-case uncertainty.Why ATF Is Doing This NowATF describes it explicitly as “a regulatory clarification designed to provide licensees with a clear, consistent understanding of their NFA tax obligation.” It’s one small piece of their broader April 29, 2026 “Reduce Burden” initiative, which is trying to eliminate unnecessary administrative headaches and costs for compliant businesses. |
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Change it back and make it worse possibly. Still, they were going to try to do that anyway so I'll still take it. Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By wildturl1: It's a start. Let's see what actually happens next. Democrats will change it all back? Change it back and make it worse possibly. Still, they were going to try to do that anyway so I'll still take it. |
|
Originally Posted By vanrichten: I was under the impression that tossing out the Chevron decision removed the ability from agencies to pass their own bullshit without congressional approval. Originally Posted By vanrichten: Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By wildturl1: It's a start. Let's see what actually happens next. Democrats will change it all back? Change it back and make it worse possibly. Still, they were going to try to do that anyway so I'll still take it. No. ETA: The loss of Chevron removed the deference the courts had to regulations, presuming they comported w/ the law. It didn't remove the ability of Congress to delegate details of implementing laws to the Executive Branch, thus agencies will still make regulations that have the force of law. The regulations will have to be more vigorously defended in court, so they have to comport more closely w/ the law & the Constitution. |
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: Have the proposed rules actually been published in the Federal Register yet? All I can find is that summaries of the 34 new rules that were published on April 29. I'd like to see the text of the actual changes. |
|
Originally Posted By GlutealCleft: My dude. Take the small win. Then go for more small wins. That's how the liberals have taken our rights away, and it's the only way we're going to get them back, an inch at a time. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By GlutealCleft: My dude. Take the small win. Then go for more small wins. That's how the liberals have taken our rights away, and it's the only way we're going to get them back, an inch at a time. That's what GA Carry did for us and now we have Constitutional Carry after 20 something years. |
I love a good double entendre.
|
The proposed Rules have started trickling into the Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/search?conditions%5Bagencies%5D%5B%5D=alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-bureau I read through the NFA engraving one pretty thoroughly and it would indeed remove all additional marking requirements for Form 1s where an existing firearm with original manufacturer's markings present is used. |
Joined:
Mar 2026
Posts:
196
EE: 100% (1)
OH, USA
|
Originally Posted By bluedog82: No need to engrave SBRs would be sweet. Receivers AND/OR barrels are valid for engraving. The receiver already has the OEM/model/caliber/serial info on it… Just engrave the barrel(s) with your name & location. It’s only an SBR when those barrel(s) are installed, so it all works out for whenever you put the regular long barrel on it anyways. Leave your factory receiver unmolested. Edit: Also any Tom, Dick or Harry can receive a barrel to engrave it. Whereas you have to bend over backwards just to comply with shipping rules to send a firearm in the mail only to overpay for the privilege of having your receiver engraved because they have an FFL. |
|
Originally Posted By Ohio_Man: Receivers AND/OR barrels are valid for engraving. The receiver already has the OEM/model/caliber/serial info on it Just engrave the barrel(s) with your name & location. It's only an SBR when those barrel(s) are installed, so it all works out for whenever you put the regular long barrel on it anyways. Leave your factory receiver unmolested. |
Joined:
Mar 2026
Posts:
197
EE: 100% (1)
OH, USA
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: The law changed in 2022 under Biden. The barrel was removed as a valid engraving location, and the info now has to be on the frame/receiver. Originally Posted By D_Man: Originally Posted By Ohio_Man: Receivers AND/OR barrels are valid for engraving. The receiver already has the OEM/model/caliber/serial info on it Just engrave the barrel(s) with your name & location. It's only an SBR when those barrel(s) are installed, so it all works out for whenever you put the regular long barrel on it anyways. Leave your factory receiver unmolested. Someone should tell the ATF… Taken directly from the ATF NFA handbook posted on their website as of today: https://www.atf.gov/media/25111/download CHAPTER 6. MAKING NFA FIREARMS BY NONLICENSEE “Section 6.2.1 … … The serial number must be engraved or stamped on the receiver of the firearm and the caliber, model, and identification of the maker must be engraved on the barrel or frame or receiver of the weapon. The marking and identification requirements for a maker are the same as for a manufacturer. Refer to section 7.4 for a detailed discussion of the requirements.” |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: The proposed Rules have started trickling into the Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/search?conditions%5Bagencies%5D%5B%5D=alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-bureau I read through the NFA engraving one pretty thoroughly and it would indeed remove all additional marking requirements for Form 1s where an existing firearm with original manufacturer's markings present is used. Thanks for the link. It looks like the CLEO notification and engraving rules only have a 60 day comment period. |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: Indeed, the NFA Handbook is known to be notoriously out of date. And yet, I think would be a pretty good defense if it ever came up in the legal system. The ATF is distributing a handbook that says its OK. If somebody downloads that book and follows it today, they should be covered. People can't reasonably be expected to know that the ATF is giving out conflicting information and that the handbook is not the most up-to-date version. Even the world's worst lawyer should be able to make a case that the person can't be held accountable for doing what the ATF said to do instead of what the ATF said to do. |
|
Originally Posted By giantpune: And yet, I think would be a pretty good defense if it ever came up in the legal system. The ATF is distributing a handbook that says its OK. If somebody downloads that book and follows it today, they should be covered. People can't reasonably be expected to know that the ATF is giving out conflicting information and that the handbook is not the most up-to-date version. Even the world's worst lawyer should be able to make a case that the person can't be held accountable for doing what the ATF said to do instead of what the ATF said to do. So yea, might work once for the first guy that tries it. 
|
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: Maybe, you'd be welcome to give the defense a try. And whether it works or not, it would very likely prompt the ATF to revise or simply remove the handbook entirely, and then that option for a defense would be gone. So yea, might work once for the first guy that tries it. That defense will work for everybody who engraved their barrels up until the ATF stops distributing the handbook, or editing the PDF to mark pages as depreciated. |
I too am lost, I feel double-crossed & I'm sick of
Joined:
Mar 2008
Posts:
5883
EE: 100% (613)
MI, USA
| So, on the engraving, if someone has a form 1 they want to do for an SBR, should they wait or do the efile now and not assemble it until the new rules pass, assuming they do. You don’t need the lower engraved when you efile, but you do need it before you assemble it, correct? |
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson
|
Originally Posted By MidMichHunter: So, on the engraving, if someone has a form 1 they want to do for an SBR, should they wait or do the efile now and not assemble it until the new rules pass, assuming they do. You don't need the lower engraved when you efile, but you do need it before you assemble it, correct? That said, remember these are not set in stone, there's a small chance they could be revised or removed for some reason before going into effect. And even if everything proceeds smoothly, it'll probably be at least 3 months before they become active. |
|
According to the Form 1 thread, it looks like some people are getting "Approved with Conditions" and that condition is you need to get it engraved. I'm in Virginia and just filed several. It will suck if I get that and have to spend the hundreds of dollars to get them engraved a few months before the change. |
|
Originally Posted By Gotterdammerung: According to the Form 1 thread, it looks like some people are getting "Approved with Conditions" and that condition is you need to get it engraved. I'm in Virginia and just filed several. It will suck if I get that and have to spend the hundreds of dollars to get them engraved a few months before the change. Originally Posted By Gotterdammerung: According to the Form 1 thread, it looks like some people are getting "Approved with Conditions" and that condition is you need to get it engraved. I'm in Virginia and just filed several. It will suck if I get that and have to spend the hundreds of dollars to get them engraved a few months before the change. The condition on those approved forms reads: MAKER MUST MARK THE FIREARM IN ACCORDANCE WITH 27 CFR 479.102. Once the new rule takes effect, the new exemption from needing markings will be an amendment added to 27 CFR 479.102, so you will be in compliance with that statue as the condition on the form requires. 2. Amend 479.102 by: a. Revising the section heading and the paragraph heading for paragraph (b)(3); and b. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(iv). The revisions and addition read as follows: 479.102 Identifying/marking firearms. **** (b) * * * (3) Adopting identifying markings.* * * (iv) Makers. Makers that remanufacture or alter an existing firearm may adopt the serial number or other identifying markings previously placed on the firearm if the markings otherwise meet the requirements of this section. |
Don't let the join date fool you... here since '97
Joined:
May 2014
Posts:
7286
EE: 100% (23)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By giantpune: And yet, I think would be a pretty good defense if it ever came up in the legal system. The ATF is distributing a handbook that says its OK. If somebody downloads that book and follows it today, they should be covered. People can't reasonably be expected to know that the ATF is giving out conflicting information and that the handbook is not the most up-to-date version. Even the world's worst lawyer should be able to make a case that the person can't be held accountable for doing what the ATF said to do instead of what the ATF said to do. |
www.HansohnBrothers.com
ATF Rule Changes Discussion Thread (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor