Armory Sponsor
ATF Rule Changes Discussion Thread (Page 2 of 3)
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: Thanks for the link. It looks like the CLEO notification and engraving rules only have a 60 day comment period. Originally Posted By willi3d: 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. I’m guessing the forms won’t be updated by removing the CLEO sections initially? Maybe they will allow “not required” in those boxes? Or even “N/A”? |
The Emperor is naked.
|
Originally Posted By DD1801: I'm guessing the forms won't be updated by removing the CLEO sections initially? Maybe they will allow "not required" in those boxes? Or even "N/A"? |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: They're usually pretty good about having the revised forms ready to go when changes go into effect Originally Posted By D_Man: Originally Posted By DD1801: I'm guessing the forms won't be updated by removing the CLEO sections initially? Maybe they will allow "not required" in those boxes? Or even "N/A"? Unless there is a typo? lol I read in the other thread that the CLEO portion has already passed the 60 day window? So should that go into effect pretty soon? Edit - not true, see below. Thank you. |
The Emperor is naked.
|
Originally Posted By DD1801: Unless there is a typo? lol I read in the other thread that the CLEO portion has already passed the 60 day window? So should that go into effect pretty soon? https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/06/2026-08912/removing-cleo-notification-under-the-national-firearms-act |
|
Meet my AI team monitoring these new rules. Document Summary Rule: NPRM 2025R-15P, "Removing CLEO Notification Under the National Firearms Act" (RIN 1140-AA65, Docket ATF-2026-0004) What it does: Eliminates the requirement that NFA applicants forward a copy of Form 1 (making), Form 4 (transfer), or Form 23 (responsible person questionnaire) to their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer. Removes 27 CFR 479.62(c) and 479.84(c). Who's affected: Every individual or trust applying to make or transfer an NFA item suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, machine guns, destructive devices. Approximately 1.17M applications in 2024; projected to exceed 2M annually by 2034. Historical context: Fourth step in a 12-year deregulatory progression. Pre-2014 required CLEO certification (signature). 2014-2016 made certification optional. 2016 replaced certification with notification (copy only, no signature, CLEO could object). This rule eliminates the touchpoint entirely. ATF's stated rationale: CLEOs don't perform independent background checks on notifications, don't file objections, and generally discard the forms. ATF performs its own NICS check and state-law review. Notification serves no investigative function and imposes documented cost on applicants. Cost-benefit: ATF estimates $11.4M annual savings, $115.8M over ten years (3% discount rate), based on 15 minutes per application $26 leisure wage = $7 per applicant.Legal basis: Lomont v. O'Neill (DC Cir. 2002) upheld the original CLEO requirement as an implied regulatory power, not a statutory mandate. ATF can remove what it could create.Procedural status: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 60-day comment period closes early July 2026. Signed by Director Robert Cekada his first signed rulemaking. Published in Federal Register May 6, 2026. What it does NOT do: Does not affect the NFRTR central registry, fingerprint/photo requirements, approval waits, or any state-level NFA restrictions. Does not change the OBBBA $0 tax (separate rule, 45F). The Regulatory Strike Team Roster & Findings Log Who's on the Team The Architect Former CRS analyst, regulatory drafting expert
The Litigator Veteran 2A appellate attorney, post-Bruen APA specialist
The Dealer Former ATF IOI turned FFL compliance consultant
The NFA Guru NFA trust attorney and Class III dealer
The Privacy Sentinel Digital rights attorney
The Veteran (Movement Skeptic) 2A litigator with 30 years of pendulum experience
The Compliance Cassandra FFL defense attorney, former industry counsel
Findings on Rule 15P (CLEO Notification Removal) The Architect Pros
Cons
Bottom line: Textbook regulatory hygiene; one of the cleanest rules in the package The Litigator Pros
Cons
Bottom line: Minimal APA exposure; one of the most defensible rescissions in the package The Dealer Pros
Cons
Bottom line: Marginal but real revenue benefit for SOT dealers; no operational downside The NFA Guru Pros
Cons
Bottom line: Real win for individual NFA buyers; doesn't touch the structural questions The Privacy Sentinel Pros
Cons
Bottom line: Net positive on a narrow axis; doesn't touch the underlying registry problem The Veteran Pros
Cons
Bottom line: More durable than most rules in the package, but not statutory or SCOTUS-grounded; pencil, not ink The Compliance Cassandra Pros
Cons
Bottom line: Unusually clean rescission; risk genuinely doesn't migrate anywhere meaningful Where the panel disagrees:
|
Illegitimi Non Carborundum
DEXAI
DEXAI
Member
Joined:
Dec 2022
Posts:
8066
EE: 0% (0)
OK, USA
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: I don't have time to do that right now, but if you want to post all the links here, I'll copy it and update the OP. Not easy for me to do at the moment, but here are a few of them: 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 |
The Emperor is naked.
This could be heaven or this could be hell
Joined:
Dec 2000
Posts:
10682
EE: 100% (204)
USA
|
Originally Posted By DD1801: Not easy for me to do at the moment, but here are a few of them: 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 Originally Posted By DD1801: Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: I don't have time to do that right now, but if you want to post all the links here, I'll copy it and update the OP. Not easy for me to do at the moment, but here are a few of them: 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. |
|
Originally Posted By wildturl1: It’s a start. Let’s see what actually happens next. Democrats will change it all back? That or a RINO (like Reagan and Bush Sr were) will give in to "public safety" and change it all back. Reagan signed the Mulford Act is a 1967 as Governor of CA and then signed the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (machine gun ban) as POTUS. Bush Sr signed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 which disarmed every law abiding American citizen on school grounds from that day forward, leading to countless massacres over the last 36 years. |
|
Does anyone know the timeline we’re looking at here for these proposed rules to become official? We know they are in the “comment” period, which for most of these proposed rule changes are to be 60 days, although I may have read someone saying one or more rules had a 90 day period? (Kind of doubt some rules would have 60 days and other rules would get 90 days.) What are the remaining steps, and what are the time periods on those steps? If these proposals “pass”, how soon can we reasonably expect for them to be official rules? I have some SBRs I’d like to submit, but I’m holding off until the CLEO notification goes away. I’m not as bothered by the engraving because if I get the approval/stamp, then I would just wait until the rule is official before I “made” the SBR. I have read most CLEOs just toss your forms in the trash, but you never know. |
The Emperor is naked.
|
Originally Posted By DD1801: Does anyone know the timeline we're looking at here for these proposed rules to become official? We know they are in the "comment" period, which for most of these proposed rule changes are to be 60 days, although I may have read someone saying one or more rules had a 90 day period? (Kind of doubt some rules would have 60 days and other rules would get 90 days.) What are the remaining steps, and what are the time periods on those steps? If these proposals "pass", how soon can we reasonably expect for them to be official rules? I have some SBRs I'd like to submit, but I'm holding off until the CLEO notification goes away. I'm not as bothered by the engraving because if I get the approval/stamp, then I would just wait until the rule is official before I "made" the SBR. I have read most CLEOs just toss your forms in the trash, but you never know. I would say a fair guess is probably another month after the comment period ends. Could be sooner than that but again it's hard to say. It sort of happens when it happens kind of thing. |
|
Originally Posted By DD1801: Does anyone know the timeline we’re looking at here for these proposed rules to become official? We know they are in the “comment” period, which for most of these proposed rule changes are to be 60 days, although I may have read someone saying one or more rules had a 90 day period? (Kind of doubt some rules would have 60 days and other rules would get 90 days.) What are the remaining steps, and what are the time periods on those steps? If these proposals “pass”, how soon can we reasonably expect for them to be official rules? I have some SBRs I’d like to submit, but I’m holding off until the CLEO notification goes away. I’m not as bothered by the engraving because if I get the approval/stamp, then I would just wait until the rule is official before I “made” the SBR. I have read most CLEOs just toss your forms in the trash, but you never know. TLDR; file the CLEO...it is meaningless anyways, and it shouldn't stop you from registering an SBR regardless. You are waiting for no real reason. It will likely be several months before they actually take affect. If we are lucky, they might take affect before the end of 2027. - Comment period has to end (90 days, or August 6th, 2026) * Oddly, the "Joint Registration for Spouses Under the National Firearms Act" proposed rule change actually has a shorter 60 day comment period, ending 7/7/2026. - Comments must be read and considered for an unspecified amount of time...could be a week, could be a year, but it is generally a few months. - Finally, the new rule(s) need to be published in the Federal Register for 30 days before taking effect. https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/infographics/federal-rulemaking-process |
|
Originally Posted By AT-ST83: TLDR; file the CLEO...it is meaningless anyways, and it shouldn't stop you from registering an SBR regardless. You are waiting for no real reason. It will likely be several months before they actually take affect. If we are lucky, they might take affect before the end of 2027. - Comment period has to end (90 days, or August 6th, 2026) * Oddly, the "Joint Registration for Spouses Under the National Firearms Act" proposed rule change actually has a shorter 60 day comment period, ending 7/7/2026. - Comments must be read and considered for an unspecified amount of time...could be a week, could be a year, but it is generally a few months. - Finally, the new rule(s) need to be published in the Federal Register for 30 days before taking effect. https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/infographics/federal-rulemaking-process The CLEO and engraving rule changes are also only 60 day comment periods, ending July 6. Given they are shortening the comment period to only 60 days, I expect they will be fast tracked after the comment period ends. |
|
Joint Registration for Spouses under the National Firearms Act https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2026-0336-0001 |
The Emperor is naked.
|
Originally Posted By DD1801: Joint Registration for Spouses under the National Firearms Act https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2026-0336-0001 So it looks like you could retroactively file for already created and possessed items? I hope so. If not, that should be hammered on in the comment period. |
|
Originally Posted By BM1455: So it looks like you could retroactively file for already created and possessed items? I hope so. If not, that should be hammered on in the comment period. So it would require a new Form 4 transfer if say you own an item already as an individual, but you want it to be jointly registered to you and your wife, but obviously you'd keep possession of the item the whole time. Just like when people move items from and individual registration into their trust, etc. |
The Emperor is naked.
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: The "joint filing" would be an other legal entity and basically be just like a trust filing except it would just be between two married persons and you'd have to submit a marriage license or other paperwork to prove it instead of a trust document. Both people would probably also file the RP questionnaire as well. So it would require a new Form 4 transfer if say you own an item already as an individual, but you want it to be jointly registered to you and your wife, but obviously you'd keep possession of the item the whole time. Just like when people move items from and individual registration into their trust, etc. Not sure why they couldn't just allow the second spouse to file a form 4 with a reference to the original form 1's or 4's filed by the first spouse's items plus the required documents. In other words a way to link to the spouse's existing registered items per item. Signature of both spouses would probably also need to be required. |
|
Originally Posted By BM1455: Not sure why they couldn't just allow the second spouse to file a form 4 with a reference to the original form 1's or 4's filed by the first spouse's items plus the required documents. In other words a way to link to the spouse's existing registered items per item. Signature of both spouses would probably also need to be required. It still would be a form 4 transfer though, so they would be doing basically as you describe but also the other spouse who already individually owns it would have to do their end of paperwork too Again, think of it the same as transferring from you into your new trust. Even though you already have it registered to you, you'd still have to do an RP form and pass another background check when you moved it into your trust. |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: Because two individuals cannot be on a single "individual" filing. And NFA item can only have one owner at a time, so it would have to be a transfer from the one person individual to the legal entity that is the marriage. It still would be a form 4 transfer though, so they would be doing basically as you describe but also the other spouse who already individually owns it would have to do their end of paperwork too Again, think of it the same as transferring from you into your new trust. Even though you already have it registered to you, you'd still have to do an RP form and pass another background check when you moved it into your trust. We really don't know how this will be executed. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: Why? Because these proposed changes are currently open for public comments, and the comment period only has just over 2 weeks remaining. These public comments will be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not to go ahead with these proposed rule changes. These rule changes are a step in the right direction and we should all want these changes to become effective ASAP. We all know these changes aren't perfect, in that we'd prefer our 3 course meal, but I'll happily take the appetizer as opposed to nothing. |
The Emperor is naked.
|
Originally Posted By DD1801: Because these proposed changes are currently open for public comments, and the comment period only has just over 2 weeks remaining. These public comments will be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not to go ahead with these proposed rule changes. These rule changes are a step in the right direction and we should all want these changes to become effective ASAP. We all know these changes aren't perfect, in that we'd prefer our 3 course meal, but I'll happily take the appetizer as opposed to nothing. Why?!? Seriously? |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Exactly, this is important stuff and should be at the forefront of our minds right now. Why?!? Seriously? Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By DD1801: Because these proposed changes are currently open for public comments, and the comment period only has just over 2 weeks remaining. These public comments will be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not to go ahead with these proposed rule changes. These rule changes are a step in the right direction and we should all want these changes to become effective ASAP. We all know these changes aren't perfect, in that we'd prefer our 3 course meal, but I'll happily take the appetizer as opposed to nothing. Why?!? Seriously? |
You must play the game. You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit the game.
|
Originally Posted By jhereg: Most gun owners want everything back at once. That's never going to happen. We should take the wins we can get if they don't mean giving up other things and keep going for more. Learn from the opposition and quit rejecting wins just because it's not everything. This is good. Let's not ruin it. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By triode: I commented recommend they make the removal of the requirement for the additional maker marking apply to pending and approved Form 1's that have manufacturer markings already but the marker has not engraved yet. Might be long shot, but can't hurt to ask. |
|
Originally Posted By mbinky: https://i.postimg.cc/wvxHsw5Z/Screen-Shot-2026-07-02-at-5-59-21-PM.png Link to ATF: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform/reduce-burden This is ok I guess, but I really don't see how it's going to do all that much. Requiring a 2"x2" passport photo was a burden when you had to go have your passport photo taken somewhere, and then paste the hardcopy photo to your paper form. But now the photo requirement really isn't nearly as burdensome when you just stand in front of a white wall and take a selfie with your cell phone. That's not much different from making a scan of your driver license or whatever. And one fingerprint card versus two cards isn't a big deal either when I assume most people are using .EFT files. The ATF said all but a small percentage of submitted forms are now eForms instead of paper, but I wonder how many eForms transfers use mail-in fingerprint cards. A big improvement I can think of would be to allow some sort of electronic signature for all forms. One example that's annoyed me lately is the wet signature requirement on 5320.23 responsible person forms. You have to print out the 5320.23, sign it and then scan the signed form back in so it's in electronic form again. Another way to solve that problem would be to not make the 5320.23 refer to a specific firearm. Just have the 5320.23 associate a specific responsible person to the legal entity that's the firearm's maker or transferee, instead of having the 5320.20 refer to the RP, the legal entity and a specific firearm. When the 5320.23 doesn't refer to a specific firearm, then a new 5320.23 isn't required for each RP for each eForm 1 or 4 submitted. Just have the 5320.23 be good for a period of time (probably a year) so it can be reused for subsequent form submissions during that time. It'd be much less burdensome to only require a new 5320.23 signed by every RP a maximum of once a year, instead of once for every form submission. |
|
Thanks for the reminder. I went and made comments on most of them. There's an amazingly low number of comments on some - 37 on one of them, forget which one. So you'll have an outsized influence if you make comments. The only one I wasn't in favor of was the Proposed Rule about the Engaged in the Business Rule, from the Slow Joe years. That Rule, since tossed out by the courts, was written to make illegal the sale of about all firearms by individuals to another individual. The new Proposed Rule cleans up bits of it, but what needs to happen is to fully reciend the EIB Rule, and either start again, or better yet, do nothing. The Proposed Rule still talks about "pecuniary gain", which was the ATF's way to claim you broke the law if you sold a gun to make money. Duh, you're not selling it cuz you're tired of dusting it. The aspect that makes you a dealer is if you buy a gun to sell it, not if you sell a gun, for any of many reasons, so that you get back what the money you spent on it. |
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
114
EE: 0% (0)
NC, USA
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
115
EE: 0% (0)
NC, USA
|
Originally Posted By thrift3309: That part I know - I just meant are we going to be informed of a decision or just one day a new set of rules pops out? I would also guess there will be reports put out by the various 2A groups and their blogs on X, email blasts, etc. when it happens, maybe even the ATF will put out a press release about it themselves. |
|
Anxiously awaiting these rules hopefully going into effect. Got some approved SBR’s that I would not mind skipping the lasering before I get around to actually having them chopped. It does seem clear that Trump must have spent the Biden years getting his ear bent by some gun owners or groups, because this time around we have seen some good changes and wins. His first term was a big do nothing, except the bump stock nonsense. Funny, even in doing that, Trump, by losing, actually gave FRT’s better legal standing… Perfect? No…. Huge improvements? Absolutely. Who ever thought we would see the Feds suing states over mag capacity bans and AW laws? |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
ATF Rule Changes Discussion Thread (Page 2 of 3)
Armory Sponsor