ATF Draft Form 4473 Changes Marijuana Question, Opens Door to Direct Gun Shipping

ATF’s draft revised Form 4473 would shorten the firearms transaction record and change several buyer questions affecting gun owners and FFLs. iStock-919659526

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has released a draft of its new “Firearms Transaction Record” form (ATF Form 4473), which has been shortened and simplified.

The first change to the form is the removal of “Non-Binary” under “Sex.” There are now only two choices: “Male” or “Female.” Some have claimed that the elimination of “Non-Binary” is a de facto transgender gun ban, but that claim doesn’t square with reality. Gun buyers are instructed to choose the sex they were assigned at birth. Since everyone is born either male or female, the question doesn’t prevent anyone from buying a gun.

In its current form, the 4473 asks the potential firearms buyer whether they are the “actual transferee/buyer” of the item in question. The way the question is worded makes it seem like you cannot legally buy a gun for another person.

That is not and never has been the law.

The new change to the question specifically calls out straw purchasing, which is against federal law. The change addresses concerns among family members and friends about buying firearms as gifts for others.

The ATF added a section that asks about the purpose of the firearms transfer. The new options are a transfer for oneself, where the transferee uses their own money to purchase the firearm as a gift for someone who is not a prohibited person, where someone is picking up a firearm as a gift or reward, or picking up a repaired firearm for someone else who is not prohibited.

Question 21 b. has also been removed from the 4473. That question asked if you intended to “sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed” on the form. It is not illegal to sell a privately owned firearm. This question can lead many to believe that selling a gun is illegal. The ATF rolled up the original intent of that rule into the new rule about “straw purchases.”

Question 21 f. has also changed. This question has largely remained intact with one big caveat. The old question used to imply that using marijuana for any reason, including medical use. Even if it is decriminalized in your state, it would disqualify a potential buyer from purchasing a gun. The new question removes references to medical marijuana. It only highlights the use of recreational marijuana.

This change consists of the rescheduling of the drug “Schedule I” to a “Schedule III” controlled substance, which is much less restrictive than the original scheduling.

The ATF Form 4473 removes the check box to specify if a firearm is a “long gun,” “handgun,” or “other.” The old form also had a redundant box where the federal firearms licensee (FFL) had to write the type of firearm being transferred. The new form eliminates redundancy to prevent mismatches. The new form includes checkboxes at the top for “Firearms handler check only” and “Private party transfer only.”

The most exciting thing about the new form is the options at the bottom of page three.

This option allows the FFL to choose an option for “Non-over-the-counter transactions.” This option covers ordering firearms online and having them shipped to a gun buyer’s door without the need to go to the gun shop of the transferer, if the transferer is in the same state. The rule for non-over-the-counter was published in the Federal Register yesterday and has been the most popular change for the Second Amendment community.

The new form has eliminated three pages from the current form, reducing it to four pages from seven. The simplification of the form, along with other changes, should lead to fewer paperwork errors, which the Biden administration used to revoke many FFLs through its zero-tolerance policies.

ATF Revised Machine Gun Definition Does Not Go Far Enough

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/EiVjK31
via IFTTT

SAF Urges Ninth Circuit To Strike California Open Carry Ban

SAF and its partners are urging the Ninth Circuit to strike down California’s open-carry ban in Baird v. Bonta. img Travis Pike

SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros cut straight to the heart of California’s open-carry problem.

“The plain text of the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms – openly or concealed – and open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for most of American history. California’s ban has no foundation in our nation’s tradition, and this Court should reaffirm that open carry is protected just as the Founders and generations of Americans understood it to be. As our brief argues, neither open nor concealed carry may be banned today.”

The Second Amendment protects the right to “bear arms.” California does not get to rewrite that command into a narrow government-approved privilege. The right is not limited to concealed carry. It is not erased because a state leaves behind a different, heavily regulated pathway to legally carrying. The Second Amendment is certainly not subject to California’s public-safety panic language dressed up as constitutional law.

The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, filed an amicus brief in Baird v. Bonta, now before the Ninth Circuit en banc. The brief supports plaintiff-appellant Mark Baird in his challenge to California’s restrictions on open carry.

The procedural posture is important. A Ninth Circuit panel previously held that California’s ban on open carry in counties with populations greater than 200,000 was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. That panel opinion has now been vacated after the Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc.

California’s scheme is not some small technical regulation. The panel opinion described California as banning open carry in counties with more than 200,000 residents, which covers roughly 95% of the state’s population. Even in smaller counties, the supposed ability to obtain an open-carry license is limited and, based on the record described by the panel, often theoretical at best.

SAF’s amicus brief attacks the state’s position at the foundation. The brief argues that history shows a longstanding tradition of lawful open carry predating the Founding, and that the Second Amendment protects open carry for lawful purposes. The brief also argues that concealed carry is protected today, even though some nineteenth-century laws treated concealed carry differently. The bottom line is simple: the state may not ban both, and it may not erase one mode of carry by pointing to the other.

California’s argument depends on treating open carry and concealed carry as interchangeable. Gun owners and gun rights groups say they are not. For most of American history, open carry was the ordinary, lawful way Americans bore arms in public. The brief notes that this included California from statehood in 1850 until 1967. Earlier generations understood open carry and concealed carry as different practices, not fungible substitutes.

That is where California’s position collapses. The state wants courts to accept a trade: California effectively bans open carry, leaves behind a highly regulated version of concealed carry, and then claims the Second Amendment supposedly survives.

The Supreme Court rejected that kind of logic in Heller. The government could not ban handguns because other firearms remained available. California should not be allowed to ban open carry because a version of concealed carry remains available.

The amicus brief also warns the Ninth Circuit not to misuse Bruen. SAF argues that some lower courts have turned Bruen’s “plain text” step into a way to avoid real historical analysis altogether. The brief describes this as a restrictive “Goldilocks” test, where a Second Amendment claim is either too far removed from the text to count or too specific to survive unless the plaintiff clears extra judge-made hurdles.

That is not Bruen. That is interest balancing by another name.

The Ninth Circuit should not turn the Second Amendment into a right that exists only after judges decide the conduct is sufficiently familiar, sufficiently popular, and sufficiently comfortable for the government. The Constitution does not ask California whether open carry makes politicians nervous. It asks whether the state can justify its restriction through this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Gun rights groups say California cannot meet that burden.

The brief also takes aim at California’s public-safety claims. California has argued that allowing open carry would create fear, panic, and chaos. SAF responds that Bruen rejected judge-empowering interest balancing and that public-safety appeals do not replace historical tradition. The brief further points out that the overwhelming majority of states allow open carry, and the predicted chaos has not followed.

California’s argument is the standard gun-control argument: trust the government, surrender the right, and accept whatever narrow substitute remains. That is not how constitutional rights work.

The right to bear arms is not a concealed-carry-only right. It is not an open-carry-only right. It is the right to bear arms.

As SAF’s brief concludes, California’s ban on open carry in populous counties fails Bruen and should be struck down.

The Ninth Circuit now has a clean choice. It can apply Bruen faithfully and recognize that California has no historical tradition supporting a broad open-carry ban. Or it can once again bend Second Amendment doctrine to save another California gun-control law.

Kostas Moros framed it exactly right: “neither open nor concealed carry may be banned today.”

DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.

---

from https://ift.tt/IJkRD7F
via IFTTT

Tennessee Deadly Force Bill SB1847 Heads to Gov. Lee After Narrowing Property Defense Language

Tennessee lawmakers passed SB1847/HB1802, a narrowed deadly-force property defense bill now headed to Gov. Bill Lee. iStock-1899043269

The Tennessee Legislature has sent Gov. Bill Lee a narrow but important reform to the state’s deadly-force law, and the fight over SB1847/HB1802 shows how much can change between a bill’s introduction and the final version that reaches a governor’s desk.

The Tennessee Legislature passed SB1847 on April 23, the last day of the legislative session. SB1847 includes the legal justification to use deadly force to protect property under certain limited circumstances. In this correspondent’s reading of the law, the legal ability to use deadly force under the bill is not very wide or broad. In the previous law, residents could use force to protect or recover property, but not deadly force.

The new language allows residents to use deadly force to prevent “the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or aggravated cruelty to animals; “if the resident reasonably believes the property cannot otherwise be protected and the use of lesser force would expose the resident or a third party to “a risk of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse.”

The initial versions of the law were more radical. They allowed the use of deadly force to prevent trespassing.  They prohibited a person from using deadly force if the suspect was facing away from them. Both instances were radical changes in the use of deadly force law in Tennessee. In the final debates leading to the passage of the bill, both the trespass and “facing away” parts of the bill were removed in the last amendment before both houses passed the bill.

In legislatures across the United States, it is common to have a post-vote process to send the bill to the governor for signature. An administrator or bureau checks the bill to ensure the language matches the language that was voted on. Then the House and Senate leadership sign declarations that the bill language is correct. These are checks to verify the bill’s legitimacy. After the legislative leadership signs off on the bill, the bill is sent to the governor for signature. States vary significantly in how long a governor has to sign a bill and what happens if the governor vetoes it or refuses to sign it.

SB1847 passed with significant super-majorities in both houses. The final votes on the amended bill were: 62-24 in the House, 3 present and not voting; 23-5 in the Senate. The final votes on the bill occurred on April 23, the last day of the session. The bill was not enrolled (checked and made ready for signatures) until April 30, a week later. The Speaker of the Senate signed the enrolled bill on April 30. The Speaker of the House did not sign the enrolled bill until May 7, 2026.

In Tennessee, the bill is automatically sent to the Governor after the signatures.  In Tennessee, the governor has 10 days, excluding Sundays, to veto or sign the bill. If the governor does not veto or sign the bill during the 10 days, it becomes law.  The 10 day clock does not start until the bill is officially received by the governor.

The rules for sending the bill to the governor can be used to play legislative games, depending on whether the leaders of the legislature want to see the bill vetoed, want to discredit the governor, or want to insure the bill is made into law. This correspondent has seen legislatures accelerate the process so the governor receives a bill one or two days after the vote. Legislators have been known to delay the process to allow the governor to veto the bill without the concern of a veto override in some states. Sometimes the timing is a matter of convenience, to allow the Governor to arrange a bill signing ceremony, for example.

The two-week span to send SB1847 to Governor Bill Lee is a mild cause for concern. It may mean the legislative leaders are not worried about a veto. The Tennessee legislature can override a veto with a simple majority in both houses. It would appear to be an easy thing to do, with the super-majorities that voted for SB1847. Ballotpedia shows that of the four vetoes done in Tennessee from 2010 to 2020, only one was overridden by the legislature.

If Governor Lee officially receives SB1847 on May 8th, he has until May 20 to sign, veto, or allow the bill to become law without his signature.

Connecticut Glock-Style Pistol Ban HB 5043 Heads to Gov. Lamont

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

---

from https://ift.tt/4VRBu9j
via IFTTT

Pennsylvania Gun Owners Push Constitutional Carry and Preemption Bills in Harrisburg

Second Amendment supporters are watching as Pennsylvania lawmakers consider SB 357 and SB 822, Constitutional Carry and stronger statewide firearm preemption enforcement. IMG Jim Grant

Pennsylvania gun owners have two major Second Amendment bills moving in Harrisburg, and anti-gun cities should be paying attention.

SB 357 would bring Constitutional Carry to Pennsylvania. SB 822 would put real enforcement behind statewide firearm preemption. One bill protects the right to carry without a government permission slip. The other puts financial consequences on local governments that keep trying to create illegal gun-control traps.

If SB 357 becomes law, Pennsylvania would become the 30th Constitutional Carry state, confirming what gun owners already know: permitless carry is not an outlier. It is the normal rule across most of America.

Pennsylvania Gun Rights, the state affiliate of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), is now urging gun owners to contact key senators and push for SB 357 to pass the full Senate “with no anti-gun amendments.” Their action alert notes that Pennsylvania has fallen behind the 29 states that already have Constitutional Carry laws on the books and says Republicans need to hear from gun owners as the bill moves forward.

Shall Not Be Questioned

The PA Constitution says the right to bear arms “shall not be questioned.”

Why hasn’t PA joined 29 states in passing Constitutional Carry?

Republicans in the State Senate are on the verge of passing it!

Make your voice heard NOW

— Pennsylvania Gun Rights (@PennGunRights) May 8, 2026

SB 357: Constitutional Carry Moves To The Full Senate

SB 357, sponsored by Sen. Cris Dush, was reported out of the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee on May 6, 2026, by a 9–5 vote and received first consideration the same day. The bill has not passed the full Senate yet, which is why gun-rights groups are turning up the pressure now.

The bill does more than clean up licensing language. It repeals provisions related to carrying firearms without a license and creates a new section titled “License not required.”

The heart of SB 357 is straightforward: a person in Pennsylvania who is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law would have an “affirmative, fundamental and constitutional right” to keep and bear firearms, including carrying openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, without a Pennsylvania carry license. The bill also makes the License to Carry Firearms optional rather than mandatory.

That is how a constitutional right should be treated. A right does not become real only after a citizen pays a fee, fills out paperwork, and waits for government approval.

SB 357 also repeals Pennsylvania’s special Philadelphia carry restriction. Current law treats Philadelphia differently by restricting carry on public streets or public property unless the person is licensed or exempt. SB 357 would remove that city-specific trap and bring Philadelphia back under the same carry standard as the rest of the Commonwealth.

That change alone makes the bill worth fighting for. Gun owners should not become criminals because they crossed an invisible municipal line.

No Anti-Gun Amendments

The warning from Pennsylvania Gun Rights is the right one: pass SB 357 clean.

Gun-control lawmakers love amendments. They use them to turn strong bills into weak bills, delay bills until the clock runs out, or load them with new restrictions that defeat the purpose of the reform.

A Constitutional Carry bill should not become a vehicle for training mandates, new disqualifiers, expanded “sensitive place” restrictions, local carve-outs, or any other poison pill dressed up as a compromise.

Pennsylvania does not need watered-down carry reform. It needs real Constitutional Carry.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Timney Alpha Competition Trigger for Glock Gen 6 Pistols	GunMag Warehouse	$ 129.99
	C&H Precision Pistol Red Dot Adapter Plate for Glock Gen 6 to Leupold Delta Point Pro, Eotech EFLX	MidwayUSA	$ 79.99
	C&H Precision Pistol Red Dot Adapter Plate for Glock Gen 6 to to Holosun EPS, EPS Carry	MidwayUSA	$ 79.99
	C&H Precision Pistol Red Dot Adapter Plate for Glock Gen 6 to Trijicon RMR, SRO, Holosun 407C, 507C, 507Comp, 508T, C&H EDC-XL, COMP	MidwayUSA	$ 79.99

SB 822: Preemption With Force Moves To The House

SB 822, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Langerholc, is the other half of this fight. The bill passed the Pennsylvania Senate on May 6, 2026, by a 30–20 vote and was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on May 7.

Pennsylvania already has firearm preemption, but preemption without enforcement invites abuse. Anti-gun local officials can pass illegal ordinances, force gun owners to fight them in court, and then use taxpayer money to defend laws they had no authority to pass in the first place.

SB 822 would change the calculation.

The bill declares that the General Assembly occupies the entire field of firearm regulation in Pennsylvania, including firearms, ammunition, magazines, accessories, firearm components, ammunition components, purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, use, discharge, transportation, and loss-or-theft reporting. Conflicting local ordinances, rules, practices, or enforcement actions would be preempted and declared null and void.

The enforcement section is where SB 822 gets its teeth. A person harmed by an illegal local gun ordinance or enforcement action could seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and actual damages. If the challenger gives 60 days’ notice and wins, or if the local government repeals the challenged rule after suit is filed, the court must award reasonable expenses.

The bill also protects gun owners dragged into court under illegal local gun laws. If a defendant successfully raises preemption and the case is withdrawn, dismissed, nolle prossed, or ends in acquittal on that basis, the court must award reasonable expenses payable by the county, municipality, or township.

Those reasonable expenses include attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs, and compensation for lost income. The bill also recognizes membership organizations whose members include affected gun owners, giving pro-gun groups a clearer path to sue when local governments violate state preemption.

That is exactly what preemption needs. A law without enforcement is an invitation for Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other anti-gun local governments to keep testing the line.

Two Bills, One Fight

SB 357 and SB 822 are different bills, but they belong in the same conversation.

• SB 357 says law-abiding Pennsylvanians should not need a government permission slip to carry a firearm for self-defense.
• SB 822 says local politicians should not be able to violate state firearm law and make gun owners pay the legal bill.

Pennsylvania gun owners need both.

Constitutional Carry protects the individual right to bear arms. Strong preemption protects that right from being chopped into pieces by city councils and local bureaucrats.

Without SB 357, Pennsylvania remains stuck behind the growing number of states that recognize permitless carry. Without SB 822, local governments, such as Philadelphia, can continue ignoring preemption and restricting constitutional rights.

The bills are not finished. SB 357 needs action from the full Senate. SB 822 has passed the Senate but now has to move through the House. Gun owners should not assume either bill is safe until it is signed into law.

The good news is that the fight is moving. Pennsylvania gun owners have a chance to push carry freedom forward and force local governments to obey state law.

New ATF Rule Will Allow Firearms to be Shipped to Your Door

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/F07RB3y
via IFTTT

Democrats Fleeing ‘Socialism’ Bringing Anti-Gun Politics with Them

As high-tax blue-state residents look for exits, gun owners in freer states should pay attention to the politics that may arrive with them. IMG Jim Grant

“Seattle AI founder looks to leave as taxes rise: ‘Everybody that I know … is in the process of leaving’,” Fox News reported Saturday. “Jesse Proudman says Venice.ai is looking at Texas, Nevada, Florida and Tennessee as alternatives to Seattle’s tax climate.”

That’s three “red” states and one “purple” state that Proudman is setting his sights on. If he and “everybody he knows” move there, what can we expect from them?

The OpenSecrets donor lookup shows him solidly and consistently in the Democrat camp, with the first two entries going to Hillary Clinton and the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. Clinton’s stance on the Second Amendment is well known: she’s a zealous prohibitionist.

So, what does the Alliance consider “gun responsibility”? Their “Timeline” shows their “Victories” over the past decade, and each one is a loss for gun owners. You got it, they want it.

That doesn’t bode well for freer states that Proudman and “everybody” he knows want to move to, where they will presumably continue to advance Democrat rule. They’re seemingly oblivious to the repeated human experience that once a majority is achieved, restraints against collectivist excesses can be thrown off. Besides, controlling everything is expensive. And if those in charge want it they can take it.

It’s almost like all freedoms are interconnected or something, and that an unrestrained government powerful enough to control guns is powerful enough to do whatever it wants.

That lesson appears lost on people who should be smart enough to know better. But the reality is, the self-styled “party of the working man” is increasingly the party of high-profile billionaires, even though the increasingly in-your-face Marxists the rope-selling capitalists are financing (like Seattle’s wholly unqualified Mayor Katie Wilson) have made no secret of their contempt for the well-heeled useful idiots who enable them.

While some are beginning to awaken to the fact that history is not kind to the “One Percent” when the proletariat decides they’re too fat and it’s too hungry, plutocrat lifeboat schemes like “guaranteed annual income” or Apocalyptic luxury bunkers will prove desperately delusional. The only thing that will work is what they’re helping to ban.

And it’s not just the wealthy Democrats.

“On the East Coast, New York City is facing a renewed exodus. According to a Citizens Budget Commission (CBC) study released earlier this month, the Big Apple lost more residents than it gained last year,” Fox News notes. “The report found that New York City lost approximately 114,000 more domestic residents to other U.S. cities than it gained in 2025, reversing two years of marginal growth.”

AOC’s mom loves the lower taxes. But her support for the “Green New Deal” shows she hasn’t learned a thing about politics.

“Boston’s affordability crisis drives young workers to consider leaving,” Fox Business adds. “Survey finds nearly half of those leaving the Northeast are heading south as rent hits $2,918 a month in Boston.”

How does that demographic vote again?

Proudman’s the one who brought up Texas, a state the gun prohibitionists have been eyeing to turn back to “blue” for some time (many younger gun owners today don’t remember Gov. Ann Richards, who wouldn’t let Texans vote on concealed carry). As things stand at this writing, committed gun-banner James Talrico leads both John Cornyn and Ken Paxton in the Senate race.

Who thinks an influx of hypocritical Democrats into these states, voters who don’t want to personally “pay their fair share” (their terminology, not mine) for the type of government they demand, will work out well for gun owners?

We’ve seen what happened in Colorado.  We can see what’s happening all over the country in an analysis by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, which blindly opines:

“Texas, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee were the biggest net winners from interstate migration, while California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts were the biggest net losers.”

If your only value is short-term financial gains, they may have a point. But long-term losses from increasingly strident collectivist demands – not just on incomes but on essential freedoms like the right of the people to keep and bear arms – are predictable.

And this just in:

For its size, South Carolina is seeing the biggest influx per capita of new residents from other states, equal to just over 1% of its population. In other words, for every 100 people living in the state, one new person moved in from elsewhere in the country… With the influx of residents, South Carolina gained more than 29,000 new tax filers and roughly $4.1 billion in income. This shift is likely to boost local economies in the state as new residents bring spending power and help fill open jobs in growing industries.

It’s all reminiscent of the story of Esau, who traded his birthright for a mess of pottage. And what’s not being factored in by these migrating Democrats is when their new nests become as fouled as the ones they abandoned, there will be no safe haven to fly to.

DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.

Arkansas Lawmakers Ask Trump DOJ to Investigate ATF Raid That Killed Bryan Malinowski

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

---

from https://ift.tt/6s38GLu
via IFTTT

New ATF Rule Will Allow Firearms to be Shipped to Your Door

ATF’s proposed non-over-the-counter transfer rule could allow same-state FFLs to complete firearm sales remotely and ship guns directly to qualified buyers after identity verification, Form 4473, and NICS requirements are satisfied. img Travis Pike

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has unveiled a new proposed rule that will allow firearms to be shipped directly to the door of gun buyers.

The rule, titled “Revising Non-Over-the-Counter Firearms Transaction Requirements” (Docket No. ATF-2026-0266; RIN 1140-AB05), is sure to rattle the cages of the anti-gun lobby. It was added to the Federal Register today and is scheduled to be published tomorrow.

The proposed rule would expand non-over-the-counter (NOTC) firearms transfers by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs). Currently, buyers must purchase their Gun Control Act (GCA) firearms in person from dealers. Under the new rule, dealers in the same state as the buyer will be allowed to sell and ship firearms directly to customers without requiring them to visit a physical store.

The rule will permit FFLs to remotely verify the buyer’s identity using approved methods.

Gun stores must use identity proofing and authentication that meet NIST SP 800-63-4 standards. This includes Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) for initial proofing, which requires strong validation of identity evidence such as a driver’s license or passport, combined with binding via video, biometrics, or other approved methods. Returning customers can use Authentication Assurance Level 2 (AAL2), which includes multi-factor authentication (MFA).

The buyer must submit an ATF Form 4473 and a copy of a government-issued photo ID to the dealer. The FFL must then conduct a video conference to visually compare the buyer to their ID. The buyer completes the remote identity proofing and authentication through a Credential Service Provider (CSP) that meets NIST standards. Once verified, the FFL runs the buyer through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Billet 13.7" .308 Mid-Length 13" Sabre Rail w/ B5 Sop-Mod Furniture & JMAC GFHCE-R Pin/Weld	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1369.99
	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Forged 13.7" .308 Mid-Length 13" Sabre Rail w/ Magpul SL-S Furniture & JMAC GFHCE-R Pin/Weld	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1319.99
	PSA "Sabre" Forged 14.5" 5.56 FN CHF CL 13.5" Geissele MK14 Pin/Weld with Sabre Furniture Rifle	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1299.99
	PSA "Sabre" Billet 14.5" .223 Wylde M4 13" Knurled Slant Rail with 3 Prong, B&T, 1/2"-28 Rifle & Sabre Furniture	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1099.99

After the NICS check, the standard 7-day waiting period and Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification (via mail or electronic means) still apply, along with normal recordkeeping requirements. FFLs remain responsible for ensuring their chosen CSP complies with the standards; the rule does not mandate any specific provider.

This change aligns with the plain language of the Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. § 922(c)), which has authorized non-over-the-counter sales since 1968 (with a 2024 update allowing electronic CLEO notifications) without limiting them to NICS-exempt transactions. The ATF argues that the Brady Act’s NICS and identity verification requirements (18 U.S.C. § 922(t)) do not prohibit remote verification.

Technological advancements since the 1993 Brady Act now make secure remote verification possible, similar to methods already used by other agencies, such as the IRS, with ID.me. The goal of the rule is to increase flexibility and access for lawful buyers without compromising safety.

NOTC transfers are already common for National Firearms Act (NFA) items such as suppressors. Many companies maintain networks of in-state FFLs that receive NFA items and then mail them directly to the buyer’s door after approval. These networks are well established, and there is no reason companies like Palmetto State Armory (PSA) could not use similar processes for standard GCA firearms.

In addition to greater flexibility for buyers and FFLs, the rule will particularly benefit gun owners in remote rural areas or those unable to travel. It allows the entire process to be completed online, eliminating the need to visit a physical gun shop. The ATF estimates significant deregulatory savings of $103.7 million annualized over 10 years. There are minimal direct costs to the government or FFLs, as use of the service is voluntary and any transaction fees can be passed on to buyers.

The public comment period will run for 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. Comments can be submitted via regulations.gov or by mail. This rule coordinates with a separate proposed rule revising ATF Form 4473 (Docket No. ATF-2026-0001; ATF 2025R-01P).

ATF Revised Machine Gun Definition Does Not Go Far Enough

ATF Rolls Back Biden-Era Gun Rules in Major Reform Package

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/fI5dYtq
via IFTTT

Connecticut Glock-Style Pistol Ban HB 5043 Heads to Gov. Lamont

Glock 17 Gen 6 9mm Pistol. Img Duncan Johnson

After clearing the Connecticut House in April, the so-called “convertible pistol” bill passed the state Senate 22–11 after an overnight debate and is now headed to Gov. Ned Lamont’s desk. Local reporting says senators debated the bill from about 3 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. before approving it Wednesday morning.

HB 5043 is not a narrow bill aimed only at criminals caught with illegal machine-gun conversion devices. It targets the future sale and importation of common semiautomatic pistols, Connecticut politicians claim, can be “readily” converted with a so-called Glock switch.

The bill defines a “convertible pistol” as a semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be altered by hand or with a common household tool so the pistol can be converted into a machine gun by installing or attaching a pistol converter. The bill excludes hammer-fired pistols and certain shielded designs, but the target is obvious: Glock-style striker-fired handguns, among the most common defensive pistols in America.

If signed, the ban takes effect on October 1, 2026. The bill would make it a Class D felony to import, advertise, sell, offer, or expose for sale covered “convertible pistols,” with penalties reported as up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

AmmoLand previously reported that the House passed HB 5043 86–64 on April 22, with every House Republican and 15 Democrats voting no. At that point, the bill was headed to the Senate. Now it has cleared both chambers and sits where Gov. Lamont wanted it all along: on his desk.

Lamont introduced the proposal, and anti-gun Democrats sold it as a response to illegal Glock switches. That excuse falls apart quickly. Machine guns are already illegal under Connecticut law. Conversion devices are already heavily restricted under federal law. Criminals installing illegal switches are already breaking the law. HB 5043 instead punishes lawful buyers, dealers, and manufacturers by attacking the handgun itself.

Republicans made that point during the debate. Sen. Rob Sampson said the bill bans “perfectly lawful firearms” even though Glock switches and illegal conversions are already prohibited.

Supporters claim the bill is not taking anyone’s existing guns. That is a dodge. A ban on future lawful sales is still a ban. It cuts off ordinary citizens from purchasing some of the most widely used defensive handguns in the country while doing nothing meaningful to the criminals already ignoring the law.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 19 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00
	Glock 19 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 10+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 699.99
	Glock 19 Gen 6 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black with Aimpoint COA	MidwayUSA	$ 1053.00
	Glock 19 Gen 6 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 10+1 Round Black with Aimpoint COA	MidwayUSA	$ 1053.00

HB 5043 creates a new prohibition on a class of commonly owned handguns because criminals can misuse illegal parts.

That is the dangerous precedent.

If Connecticut can ban Glock-style pistols because a criminal might illegally convert one, the same logic can be used against nearly any semiautomatic firearm. Anti-gun lawmakers do not need to win the entire handgun-ban argument at once. They only need to keep creating new categories, new labels, and new excuses until lawful ownership becomes impossible for everyone but the politically favored.

The National Association for Gun Rights is now urging Connecticut gun owners and Second Amendment supporters to contact Gov. Lamont and demand a veto. NAGR’s action page warns that HB 5043 has been pushed through the legislature and “now goes to Governor Ned Lamont’s desk for a signature or veto,” asking supporters to email Lamont and insist that he veto the bill.

PISTOL BAN MOVING FAST IN CONNECTICUT

In the dead of night, with debates not even starting until 3:24 AM, the Senate passed HB5043 which could ban most striker fired pistols in the state.

It now heads to the Governor’s desk. Use the link below, demand a veto! pic.twitter.com/cWZWWkDrDB

— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) May 6, 2026

Connecticut gun owners should not wait. The legislature has already done its damage. The fight is now at the governor’s desk.

This bill does not stop violent criminals. It does not stop illegal switches. It does not make Connecticut families safer. It takes aim at lawful gun owners, lawful retailers, and some of the most popular defensive handguns in America.

For Connecticut Democrats, the criminal misuse of illegal machine-gun conversion devices has become the excuse. The target is the handgun.

Connecticut is not acting alone. Anti-gun states are now testing a new front in the gun-ban fight by labeling common striker-fired handguns “convertible pistols” and blaming lawful gun designs for the criminal misuse of illegal conversion devices. Connecticut is among the first states moving this kind of legislation, alongside similar efforts in places like California, Maryland, Illinois, and New York.

At the same time, the Department of Justice has started challenging bans on commonly owned arms, suing Denver over its ban on semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15-style rifles, and filing a separate challenge to Colorado’s magazine ban. If DOJ is serious about defending arms “in common use,” these so-called convertible-pistol bans could be the next obvious target.

They use the same basic trick: take a firearm millions of Americans lawfully own, attach a scary political label to it, and criminalize future access.

ATF’s 34-Rule Reform Package Is a Start, Not a Finish Line for Gun Owners

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/CP5x9Gy
via IFTTT