Many of the rule changes announced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in April are designed to help the gun industry sell more guns to more people. But one rule meant to do so has divided the industry: Hundreds of gun dealers have submitted comment letters opposing one proposal that, if implemented, would allow people to purchase guns and undergo background checks online, skipping gun sales counters entirely. The rule pairs with another Trump administration proposal that would undo the century-old ban on mailing firearms.
The ATF has so far published 80 percent of the more than 4,300 comments submitted by the public regarding the proposal. An analysis of those comments shows that the ATF’s skip-the-counter sales proposal is broadly unpopular among both gun safety advocates and members of the gun industry.1As of this writing, 3,579 comment letters have been published in the rulemaking docket. The window for submitting comments closed on August 6, 2026. As recounted by The New York Times, many gun dealers fear that the proposed rule will put more guns into the hands of people prohibited from owning them and create new gun trafficking channels. Even the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the gun industry’s trade association, said that it was “overwhelmingly opposed” to the proposed rule, pointing to the “public safety consequences by not having in-person transactions.”
Additionally, many gun dealers oppose the proposed rule because it favors large online retailers like GrabAGun — the self-described “Amazon of guns” in which Donald Trump Jr. is both a director and part owner — over small businesses. Some of these comments, coming from members of an industry that has worked hand-in-glove with the Trump administration, even allege a conflict of interest due to GrabAGun’s potential windfall from the proposal.
Gun Dealers Weigh in on the Dangers
Currently, those who buy firearms online must still pick up their purchases from federally licensed gun dealers and either undergo a background check or provide a qualifying permit in most situations. This required in-person interaction is a critical intervention point, giving gun dealers a chance to verify a customer’s identity, identify suspicious behavior indicative of gun trafficking, and potentially refuse to complete a sale. In the ATF’s own words, gun dealers are the “first line in maintaining the security and lawful transfer of firearms.”
But as discussed here, the ATF’s non-over-the-counter (NOTC) gun sales proposal would allow online retailers to conduct background checks on customers using videoconferencing and complete the sale fully remotely, removing the in-person requirement.
A large portion of the public comments expressed concern that the ATF proposal would increase the likelihood of prohibited people obtaining guns, particularly by removing in-person interactions. That included many comments from members of the gun industry itself. As one gun dealer noted, “the human factor” inherent to in-person sales allows him to assess if “something seems fishy” and possibly deny a sale, and eliminating that is a “dangerous move.” A West Virginia gun dealer wrote, “A week does not go by that we refuse a sale to a person who is under the influence, or has another person trying to do the [paperwork] on their behalf because they are prohibited,” describing an illegal straw sale.
Under the ATF proposal, people prohibited from owning guns, such as domestic abusers, could simply get others to purchase guns for them and have them delivered to their door. The NSSF also warned that prohibited purchasers could potentially use deepfakes to impersonate others. Worse yet, as one gun dealer pointed out, a single straw purchaser could buy pistols “from 20 different dealers in their state” and “have them all shipped to their house,” negating other “methods of detection” like “in person conversation[s],” as well as the multiple sales reports that dealers are required to file with the ATF when customers purchase two or more handguns within five business days.
Other commenters noted that in-person interactions have stopped illegal sales that originated online. A gun dealer in Ohio wrote, “I see daily how in-person contact prevents straw purchases that a video call can never catch. We have even worked with local ATF agents when we realized there was a straw-purchase ring happening — using online gun sales — and the criminals were using our store to perpetrate it.” A gun dealer with locations in Maryland and West Virginia wrote that face-to-face interactions have helped staff stop “[m]any straw purchases,” including a trafficking ring attempting to stockpile guns purchased online. They warned, “If you ship [firearms] direct to consumer, this will be lost for sure.”
In its opposition letter, the NSSF stated that it had conducted an internal poll of its members and found that 72 percent of respondents opposed the ATF’s proposed rule, with 56 percent strongly opposing it. Additionally, while the ATF estimates that the rule would lead to 3.28 million more gun sales per year — without any consideration of the public safety costs — only 26 percent of the NSSF respondents said that they would take advantage of the remote sales.
Bankrupting Small Businesses
Many of the comments analyzed warned that the ATF proposal would benefit large online retailers and, as one commenter put it, “kill thousands of small businesses.” Small dealers often charge fees for completing in-person transfers of guns purchased online, and the increase in foot traffic helps them sell accessories and ammunition. But eliminating the in-person requirement would also eliminate that revenue.
A gun dealer wrote that the “bone headed” rule amounted to “[b]ig companies pushing out small businesses,” forcing them into bankruptcy. Another wrote, “I can barely compete with the ‘race to the bottom’ mentality by internet dealers doing sheer volume sales, free shipping, no tax, etc.” and thanked “corporate America” from the “bottom of my bankruptcy.”
It does not appear that ATF leadership is particularly concerned about the potential negative effects for small gun dealers. In a recent interview, ATF Chief Counsel Robert Leider defended the rule: “You cannot expect the gun industry to operate in a 1960s-style marketplace in the 2020s. Markets have moved online. Gun sales have moved online.” Many requirements for gun dealers were established by the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was enacted to prohibit mail-order gun sales. Leider also dismissed the importance of local gun dealers, claiming that the gun industry’s “center of gravity” today is “some large interstate dealer that is taking the full value of the firearm and then shipping it to a transfer dealer.”2The Reload, “ATF Chief Counsel Robert Leider Explains the Bureau’s New Gun Rules,” YouTube, May 18, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G92D__DCFQM&t , at 21:41.
In early July, the Washington Post and Reuters published stories outlining how Donald Trump Jr. stood to make money from the proposed remote gun sales. Indeed, shortly after the rule was announced, GrabAGun CEO Marc Nemati told investors that the company was “uniquely positioned for this opportunity,” and that few others can “adapt this quickly if the rules change.”
Those news stories, which drew attention to the ways that the rule could benefit Trump Jr’s investment and hurt small businesses, seemed to supercharge opposition from members of the gun industry. Many comments submitted after the news coverage denounced GrabAGun by name. One gun dealer wrote that “GrabAGun (and Donald Trump, Jr.) would expect a huge windfall from this rule change. That is a clear conflict of interest motivating this change for personal financial gain.” Another wrote that the new rule was proposed “only to allow the Trump family to expand grabagun.com. As a small gun shop owner, I am begging the ATF not to allow this to become reality.” Others suggested that GrabAGun, and other large retailers like Palmetto State Armory and Atlantic Firearms, were “pushing” for the rule and “funding” it.3As of this writing, none of the published comment letters are from Palmetto State Armory or Atlantic Firearms, and their positions on this specific rule have not been made public.
GrabAGun also submitted its own comment letter defending the “misrepresented” ATF rule, which it said “would allow GrabAGun to serve customers who need or strongly prefer the alternative of going to a retailer in person.” The company also dismissed the concerns that the rule would enable gun trafficking, arguing that online identification verification “is more reliable than a visual check at the counter.” At the same time, it asked the ATF to allow gun buyers to submit video recordings of themselves “at any time” as a substitute for live videoconferencing — giving bad actors yet another avenue to exploit.