This is a proposed rule (not final) that formally defines and clarifies what counts as a straw purchase, including both illegal conduct and clearly defined lawful exceptions (like gifts and certain family transactions).
Impact: Moderate to high—does not create new law, but clarifies enforcement and removes gray areas, which could affect how cases are charged and how FFLs handle transactions.
Applies to: Both individuals and FFLs.
What this rule means
“Straw purchasing” has always been illegal under federal law, but it has never been clearly defined in ATF regulations—it’s been based on:
- Statutes
- Court decisions
- ATF guidance
This rule puts all of that into one clear regulatory definition.
It defines:
- What a straw purchase is
- What is NOT a straw purchase
- The difference between:
- Lying to an FFL (traditional straw purchase)
- Buying for a prohibited person (separate and more serious category)
What the rule actually does
If finalized, this rule would:
- Create a formal definition of “straw purchaser”
Two main categories:
A) Material misrepresentation (“lying and buying”)
- Saying you are the actual buyer when you are really buying for someone else
B) Purchasing for a prohibited person
- Buying a firearm for someone you know (or should know):
- Is prohibited
- Plans to commit a crime
- Plans to transfer to a prohibited person
- Clearly define what is NOT a straw purchase
This is one of the most important parts:
The rule explicitly allows:
- Bona fide gifts (no money or value exchanged)
- Parents buying for minor children
- Spouses purchasing firearms (shared finances situations)
- Redeeming pawned firearms
- Picking up repaired firearms
- Consignment returns
- Raffle winnings
- Inheritance transfers
- Clarify “gift vs. straw purchase”
- Gift = OK if:
- No compensation
- NOT a gift if:
- Someone gives you money (or value) to buy it
- Clarify spousal transactions
- If both spouses are legal and live together:
- It doesn’t matter who fills out the form or pays
- BUT:
- Buying for a prohibited spouse is still illegal
- Reinforce FFL responsibility
- FFLs cannot transfer a firearm if they:
- Know or have reason to believe it’s a straw purchase
What will change (real-world impact)
For Individuals:
- More clarity on what is legal vs illegal
- Safer ground for:
- Gifts
- Family transactions
- But also:
- Less ambiguity = easier enforcement in questionable situations
For FFLs (Primary Compliance Impact):
- Clearer guidance on:
- When to deny a sale
- May lead to:
- More consistent decisions across the industry
- Reduces confusion around:
- Spouses
- Gifts
- Third-party pickups
For enforcement:
- Stronger, clearer regulatory basis for prosecutions
- Aligns regulation with:
- Supreme Court precedent (Abramski)
- Statutory changes (2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act)
For the system overall:
- Moves from:
- Case law + guidance → formal regulation
- Reduces ambiguity but increases clarity in enforcement
Key Takeaways
- Does not create new crimes—clarifies existing ones
- Clearly separates legal transactions from illegal straw purchases
- Protects common lawful behavior (gifts, family transactions)
- Strengthens enforcement against intentional circumvention
Proposed Rule to Be Published:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR part 478
[Docket No. ATF-2026-0013; ATF No. 2025R-41P]
RIN 1140-AA78
Firearms Transactions and Straw Purchases
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of
Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”)
proposes amending Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations to provide clarity
for conduct prohibited by federal law commonly referred to as a straw purchase.
DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on or before
(or, if mailed, must be postmarked on or before) [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Commenters should be
aware that the federal e-rulemaking portal comment system will not accept comments
after midnight Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1140-AA78, by either of
the following methods —
• Federal e-rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: ATF Rulemaking Comments; Mail Stop 6N-518, Office of Regulatory
Affairs; Enforcement Programs and Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives; 99 New York Ave, NE; Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: RIN 1140-AA78.Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN
1140-AA78) for this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM” or “proposed rule”). ATF
may post all properly completed comments it receives from either of the methods
described above, without change to the federal e-rulemaking portal,
https://www.regulations.gov. This includes any personally identifying information (“PII”)
or business proprietary information (“PROPIN”) submitted in the body of the comment
or as part of a related attachment they want posted. Commenters who submit through the
federal e-rulemaking portal and do not want any of their PII posted on the internet should
omit it from the body of their comment and any uploaded attachments that they want
posted. If online commenters wish to submit PII with their comment, they should place it
in a separate attachment and mark it at the top with the marking “CUI/PRVCY.”
Commenters who submit through mail should likewise omit their PII or PROPIN from
the body of the comment and provide any such information on the cover sheet only,
marking it at the top as “CUI/PRVCY” for PII, or as “CUI/PROPIN” for PROPIN. For
detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a
summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov. Commenters must
submit comments by using one of the methods described above, not by emailing the
address set forth in the following paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Regulatory Affairs, by
email at ORA@atf.gov, by mail at Office of Regulatory Affairs; Enforcement Programs
and Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; 99 New York Ave,
NE; Washington, DC 20226, or by telephone at 202-648-7070 (this is not a toll-free
number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Background
The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968
(“GCA”), as amended. This responsibility includes the authority to promulgate
regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA.1 See 18 U.S.C. 926(a).
Congress and the Attorney General have delegated the responsibility for administering
and enforcing the GCA to the Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to the direction of the
Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1); 28 CFR
0.130(a)(1)-(2); Treas. Order No. 221(2)(a), (d), 37 FR 11696–97 (June 10, 1972).2
Accordingly, the Department and ATF have promulgated regulations to implement the
GCA in 27 CFR part 478.
The GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921–934, is a comprehensive federal firearms regulatory
scheme. For example, section 922 prohibits certain firearm transactions and makes
certain individuals ineligible to possess or receive a firearm; section 923 sets forth the
licensing requirements for certain individuals and organizations engaged in the firearms
business and their legal obligations during a firearm transfer to an unlicensed person; and
section 924 sets forth the penalties for substantive statutory violations.
When an individual seeks to acquire a firearm from a federal firearms licensee
(“FFL”), the parties must comply with a series of statutory and regulatory requirements,
to include identification verification requirements. This allows FFLs to verify that the
person receiving the firearm at the point of purchase/transfer (i.e., the immediate
transferee) may lawfully possess the firearm. Additionally, properly identifying the
1 Some GCA provisions still refer to the “Secretary of the Treasury.” However, the Homeland Security Act
of 2002, Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135, transferred the functions of ATF from the Department of the
Treasury to the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney General. 26 U.S.C.
7801(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. 599A(c)(1). Thus, for ease of reference, this proposed rule refers to the Attorney
General where relevant.
2 In Attorney General Order Number 6353–2025, the Attorney General delegated authority to the Director
to issue regulations relating to matters within ATF’s jurisdiction, including under the National Firearms
Act, GCA, and Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act. ATF’s jurisdiction also includes those
portions of sec. 38 of the Arms Export Control Act pertaining to permanently importing defense articles
and services and the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act.immediate transferee of the firearm in the FFL’s records is a critical step in aiding law
enforcement with tracing a firearm used in violent crime. A straw purchase case arises
when the immediate transferee provides false information on the ATF Form 5300.9,
Firearms Transaction Record (“Form 4473”) that is material to the lawfulness of the
firearm transfer, or the immediate transferee purchases a firearm with intent to convey the
firearm to a prohibited person, a person who intends to commit a felony, federal crime of
terrorism, or a drug trafficking crime, or a person who intends to transfer the firearm to a
prohibited person. Commonly, the true purchaser/ultimate recipient of the firearm is
ineligible to lawfully purchase a firearm; or, for any other reason does not want to
undergo a background check, complete the required Form 4473, and be documented as
the purchaser. The use of a straw purchaser effectively hides the identity of the true
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.
Traditionally, federal law did not define the term “straw purchase” in statute or
regulation. The legal doctrine concerning straw purchase currently involves three federal
provisions: 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), 924(a)(1)(A), and 932. Prior to the enactment of the
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”) in 2022, sections 922(a)(6) and
924(a)(1)(A) encompassed the criminal conduct of providing false information to an FFL
as part of a straw purchase. Criminal conduct under these sections is commonly known as
“lying and buying” because section 922(a)(6) criminalizes a person, in connection with
the acquisition or attempted acquisition of a firearm or ammunition from an FFL,
knowingly making any false or fictitious statement or exhibiting false, fictitious, or
misrepresented identification, which is intended or likely to deceive the FFL with respectto any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition under the provisions
of 18 U.S.C. chapter 44.
Similarly, section 924(a)(1)(A) makes it unlawful to knowingly make any false
statement or representation with respect to the information required to be kept in the
records of an FFL. Both statutory provisions criminalize “straw purchasing” by focusing
on the false statement or representation by the immediate transferee to the FFL.
Commonly, a false statement by the immediate transferee on the Form 4473 that they are
the actual buyer when buying the firearm for someone else is the basis for criminal
prosecution because the immediate transferee causes the FFL to record the incorrect
transferee in the acquisition and disposition record that the FFL is required to maintain.
The straw-purchase doctrine that grew around these criminal provisions had an
ambiguity concerning materiality. Initially, ATF maintained a narrower interpretation of
straw purchasing because it viewed it as occurring only when a person purchased a
firearm on behalf of the actual purchaser who was a prohibited person. This is the
“narrower” understanding of a straw purchase. In other words, ATF did not deem
purchasing a firearm on behalf of an eligible buyer to be a materially false statement to
the transaction. See ATF Industry Circular 79-10 (Aug. 7, 1979), reprinted in (Your
Guide To) Federal Firearms Regulation 78, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-
library/abstracts/your-guide-firearms-regulation-1978 [https://perma.cc/VDF9-3LSM].
This position changed in 1994 when ATF adopted a broader understanding of the term
straw purchase. There is case law to support the position that 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) can be
charged where the actual purchaser participating in the straw purchase is qualified to
purchase a firearm and a false statement is made concerning the true purchaser of the
firearm. This false statement is “material to the lawfulness of the sale.” See United States
v. Ortiz-Loya, 777 F.2d 973, 979 (5th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Carter, 60
F.3d 825 (4th Cir. 1995).Congress codified the narrower understanding of the straw purchase doctrine, i.e.,
a purchase for a prohibited person or person falling into other categories identified by
Congress, when it passed BSCA in 2022. In BSCA, Congress added 18 U.S.C. 932,
which prohibits any person from knowingly purchasing, or conspiring to purchase, any
firearm in or otherwise affecting interstate or foreign commerce for, on behalf of, or at
the request or demand of another person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe
such other person is prohibited from possessing firearms; intends to use or carry the
firearm in furtherance of a felony, a federal crime of terrorism or a drug trafficking crime;
or intends to sell or give the firearm to any person who is prohibited or a person who
intends to use or carry the firearm in furtherance of a felony, a federal crime of terrorism,
or a drug trafficking crime. Notably, unlike sections 924(a)(1)(A) and 922(a)(6), this
section applies to any purchase or disposition of a firearm, not just transfers from FFLs.
As mentioned above, it was in 1994 when ATF concluded that purchasing a
firearm on behalf of another person qualified as a materially false statement even if the
other person (the actual purchaser or ultimate recipient) was not prohibited from
possessing a firearm under federal law. In reaching this conclusion, ATF noted that these
types of purchases inhibited the ability to trace firearms and resulted in the failure to
complete a background check mandated by the Brady Act on the actual purchaser or
recipient of the firearm.
In 2014, the Supreme Court agreed with the broader understanding of straw
purchase. In Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (2014), the Supreme Court held that
a transferee’s false statement to an FFL dealer that he was the actual purchaser on a Form
4473 was a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A) regardless of whether the
true purchaser and ultimate recipient could legally possess the firearm. Like ATF, the
Court noted that these statements inhibited background checks and firearm tracing.
Following Abramski, a straw purchase under sections 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A) hingeson false statements by the individual involved in the firearms transaction to the FFL
regardless of whether the true purchaser and ultimate recipient of the firearm is
prohibited from receiving a firearm under federal law.
In accordance with the broader understanding of straw purchasing, versions of the
Form 4473 issued after 1994 have required the transferee to certify that he is the “actual
transferee/buyer” of the firearm. The Form 4473 has included instructions, which have
evolved over time, as to when a person is the “actual transferee/buyer.” As of this
drafting, the current Form 4473 (revised Aug. 2023) advises that a person is an actual
transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing or acquiring a firearm for him/herself (e.g.,
redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner)
or if purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. The Form 4473 also
advises that a “gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person
completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for
him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the
firearm.” The Form 4473 (revised Aug. 2023) continues with examples of when a person
is not considered the “actual transferee/buyer” of the firearm. Specifically,
Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith (who may or may
not be prohibited). Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is
NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER OF THE FIREARM.” However, if
“Mr. Brown buys the firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a gift
(with no service or tangible thing of value provided by Mr. Black), Mr. Brown is the
actual transferee/buyer of the firearm.”
ATF has always understood the broader straw purchase doctrine to exclude
certain firearm acquisitions on behalf of another. Most notably, a straw purchase does not
occur when a person purchases a firearm as a bona fide gift for another as the gift giver
(i.e., the actual purchaser) receives nothing of value for the firearm from the gift
recipient. If, however, a person receives money or other value from the intended
recipient, then the purchase is not a gift, and the intended recipient is the true purchaser.Additionally, ATF has long understood the straw-purchase doctrine to exclude
instances where parents purchase firearms on behalf of their minor children. See Firearms
Regulation Guide (1978) at 82 (“A parent or guardian may purchase firearms and
ammunition for a juvenile. GCA age restrictions are intended only to prevent juveniles
from acting without their parents’ or guardians’ knowledge.”)]; see also Firearms
Regulation Guide (1988-89) at 84 (advising the same). In this scenario, the parent
purchases the firearm and takes responsibility for the weapon. The age restrictions in the
GCA were designed to stop the unsupervised acquisition of firearms by minors; the GCA
was not intended to prevent lawful possession or use by a minor. See S. Rep. No. 90–
1097, at 79 (1968) (explaining that under the GCA “a minor or juvenile would not be
restricted from owning or learning the proper usage of the firearm,” as any firearm
“which his parent or guardian desired him to have could be obtained for the minor or
juvenile by the parent or guardian.”). There are additional scenarios that are not
considered straw purchases, including pawn redemption or consignment and storage
pick-up. The instructions on the current Form 4473 provide: “For purposes of this form, a
person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is . . . acquiring the firearm for him/herself.
(e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle
winner.).” Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record (Revised Aug. 2023),
atf-form-53009/download [https://perma.cc/H2R2-G6PR].
ATF has also permitted the retrieval of firearms left for repair for another person
provided the person receiving the firearm is not prohibited. The Form 4473 (revised Aug.
2023) under Question 21.a. currently provides that, “[i]f you are only picking up a
repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a.,” which asks
whether the individual is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm listed on the form.
Although the individual acquiring the firearm from the FFL is not the actual transferee orultimate recipient, ATF does not consider a straw purchase to have occurred in these
kinds of limited scenarios.
ATF has recently received inquiries regarding the gift of firearms or the purchase
of firearms as marital property. This has led to some confusion among FFLs whether a
purchase may be completed using money from a spouse or with a spouse present. ATF
also continues to receive questions seeking clarification regarding who the actual
transferee or purchaser of a firearm is for transactions involving redemptions from pawn,
gunsmith repairs, consignment, storage, and bona fide gifts. In light of the need for more
clarity to distinguish between the illegal conduct that constitutes a straw purchase and
other behavior that does not come within ATF’s historical understanding of a straw
purchase, this rule proposes to add 27 CFR 478.105 to clarify the legal distinctions
between unlawful straw purchases and lawful third-party transfers.
II. Proposed rule
The rule proposes to create a new section in part 478 that would restate the law of
straw purchasing. Paragraph (a) of the new section would make clear that a buyer of a
firearm may not obtain a firearm from an FFL by being a straw purchaser and an FFL
may not sell a firearm to a person who he knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a
straw purchaser.
The remainder of the new section would describe who a “straw purchaser” is to
explain two types of straw purchases. The new section would clearly demarcate two types
of straw purchasing: (1) straw purchasing by making a material misstatement, which is
elaborated by paragraphs (b)–(d), and (2) straw purchasing by purchasing for a prohibited
person, which is elaborated by paragraph (e).
Paragraphs (b) and (c) would explain the longstanding interpretation of 18 U.S.C.
922(a)(6) as applied to straw purchasing, consistent with federal case law and the broader
understanding of straw purchase (i.e., purchasing on behalf of another person even if thatperson is not a prohibited person under the GCA). Particularly, paragraph (c) would
delineate categories of lawful transactions that do not constitute straw purchases under
paragraph (b), such as bona fide gifts, parental purchases for a “minor child” (which
would be defined in paragraph (d)), purchases among spouses, and redemption or repair
of firearms by their lawful owners. Importantly, these exceptions cover only straw
purchases by material misstatement.
Paragraph (e) would address a different kind of straw purchasing: the purchase of
a firearm for a prohibited person. Congress codified this kind of straw purchasing as a
criminal offense in 18 U.S.C. 932. This regulation reiterates and clarifies those prohibited
transactions. Paragraph (e) would clarify that the exceptions listed in paragraph (c) to
straw purchases by material misstatements do not apply to the prohibition against making
straw purchases for a prohibited person. This clarification is important especially in cases
of spousal transfers. A common straw purchase transaction involves one spouse
purchasing on behalf of a prohibited spouse. This rule would make clear that such
conduct is prohibited. On the other hand, among two spouses who may lawfully possess
firearms and live at the same address, it does not matter which spouse fills out the form or
hands over the money. Both the firearm and the funds used to pay for it will likely be
martial property. For tracing purposes, the form will identify the name of a responsible
adult who acquired the firearm and the correct address where that person lives. The
exceptions to straw purchasing for spouses and for minor children under age 21 reflect
that ATF will not micromanage family affairs. ATF retains an interest in such
transactions only when a member of the family is prohibited by law from possessing a
firearm.
As discussed above, the GCA is a comprehensive federal firearms regulatory
scheme that was enacted to reduce violent crime by preventing felons and other
prohibited persons from acquiring firearms. It ensures that the federal government cantrace firearms involved in a crime to locate the perpetrator(s) through accurate records of
FFLs showing the actual purchasers of the firearms and provide crime gun intelligence to
locate and disrupt firearm trafficking networks using multiple sale reports with accurate
purchaser information. ATF uses the crime gun intelligence model because it focuses on
generating actionable intelligence related to connecting, identifying, and disrupting
firearms violence through evidence-based methods using forensics and law enforcement
investigations.3 These objectives are enforced through a combination of background
checks, identification verification, and accurate record-keeping by FFLs, all of which
depend on truthful identification of the actual transferee or purchaser. Straw purchasing
undermines the statutory objectives of the GCA by subverting this regulatory framework.
While such conduct must remain clearly unlawful, not all third-party acquisitions
are improper. As described above, longstanding ATF guidance has acknowledged that
individuals may purchase firearms as bona fide gifts for others, provided no
compensation is received and the recipient is not otherwise prohibited. Federal law does
not bar private transfers or gifts between unlicensed persons residing in the same state as
long as neither party is a prohibited person and such transfer does not violate any state or
federal laws. Federal law does not bar private transfers or gifts between unlicensed
persons residing in different states as long as the transfer is facilitated by an FFL in each
of the respective states. As the Supreme Court emphasized in FDA v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000), statutory interpretation must be
guided by common sense.
Accordingly, ATF believes that by articulating these distinctions in regulation, the
proposed § 478.105 will enhance industry compliance, assist law enforcement, and
3 See ATF.gov, Crime Gun Intelligence, https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/infographics/crime-gun-
intelligence [https://perma.cc/NSB6-HFJ9].reduce confusion regarding the legality of common firearm transfers. It would also ensure
consistent terminology and reinforce the GCA’s goals without impeding lawful conduct.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing
costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting public flexibility.
This proposed rule would amend 27 CFR part 478 to provide clarity to both FFLs
and non-licensees regarding conduct that has been recognized by the courts and ATF as
rising to the level of a straw purchase, which is prohibited by federal law.
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this
proposed rule would not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order
12866. Therefore, it did not review this rule. This proposed rulemaking provides
qualitative benefits to the firearms industry and firearms purchasers by providing clarity
on the scope of what constitutes unlawful straw purchasing. However, ATF does not have
sufficient information to calculate quantifiable savings and thus requests more
information from the public regarding the economic effects this rulemaking may have on
the public and the regulated industries.
B. Executive Order 14192
Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires an
agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing regulations to be
repealed or revised when the agency publicly proposes for notice-and-comment or
otherwise promulgates a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192regulatory action (defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs
greater than zero). In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order
14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with such new regulations
must, to the extent permitted by law, also be offset by eliminating existing costs
associated with at least ten prior regulations. However, this proposed rule would not be
an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and it would not impose total costs greater
than zero.
C. Executive Order 14294
Executive Order 14294 (Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations)
requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially
subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal
enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each
element of those offenses. This proposed rule would not create a criminal regulatory
offense and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.
D. Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, the
relationship between the federal government and the states, or the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance
with section 6 of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Director has determined that
this proposed rule would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local
governments, preempt state law, or meaningfully implicate federalism. It thus does not
warrant preparing a federalism summary impact statement.E. Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, agencies are
required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any proposed rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency head certifies, including
a statement of the factual basis, that the proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include certain
small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it would
simply provide clarity on the scope of what constitutes unlawful straw purchasing based
on existing case law and long-standing agency guidance. This proposed rule will not
impose any additional costs.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that might result in the
expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it would not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Therefore, ATF has determined that no actions are necessary
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521,
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any informationcollection requirements a rule creates or any impacts it has on existing information
collections. An information collection includes any reporting, record-keeping,
monitoring, posting, labeling, or other similar actions an agency requires of the public.
See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). This proposed rule would not create any new information
collection requirements or impact any existing ones covered by the PRA.
I. Congressional Review Act
This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.
IV. Public Participation
A. Comments sought
ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF
specifically requests comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be
made easier to understand. ATF also requests comments on the costs or benefits of the
proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs
and benefits.
All comments must reference this document’s RIN 1140-AA78 and, if
handwritten, must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete
first and last name and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal
e-rulemaking portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully
review and follow the website’s instructions on submitting comments. Whether you
submit comments online or by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as
an individual, any information you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code,
and phone will not be publicly viewable when ATF publishes the comment on
https://regulations.gov. However, if you include such personally identifying information
(“PII”) in the body of your online comment, it may be posted and viewable online.
Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in the body of the comment, it maybe posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters should review section IV.B of
this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII if you do not want it
published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these
requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain comments
containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s administrative record, but will
not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all comments
as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF cannot
read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before
the closing date.
B. Confidentiality
ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether
submitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public
viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who
do not want their name or other PII posted on the internet should submit their comments
with a separate cover sheet containing their PII. The separate cover sheet should be
marked with “CUI/PRVCY” at the top to identify it as protected PII under the Privacy
Act. Both the cover sheet and comment must reference RIN 1140-AA78. For comments
submitted by mail, information contained on the cover sheet will not appear when posted
on the internet, but any PII that appears within the body of a comment will not be
redacted by ATF and may appear on the internet. Similarly, commenters who submit
through the federal e-rulemaking portal and who do not want any of their PII posted on
the internet should omit such PII from the body of their comment and any uploadedattachments. However, PII entered into the online fields designated for name, email, and
other contact information will not be posted or viewable online.
A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary or
confidential business information by mail. To request that ATF handle this information as
controlled unclassified information (“CUI”), the commenter must place any portion of a
comment that is proprietary or confidential business information under law or regulation
on pages separate from the balance of the comment, with each page prominently marked
“CUI/PROPIN” at the top of the page.
ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information submitted in
compliance with these instructions available when disclosing the comments that it
receives, but will disclose that the commenter provided proprietary or confidential
business information that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not
have access. If ATF receives a request to examine or copy this information, it will treat it
as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition,
ATF will disclose such proprietary or confidential business information to the extent
required by other legal process.
C. Submitting comments
Submit comments using either of the two methods described below (but do not
submit the same comment multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered
comments will not be accepted.
• Federal e-rulemaking portal: ATF recommends that you submit your comments
to ATF via the federal e-rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
instructions. Comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if
large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that is
provided after you have successfully uploaded your comment.• Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this document. Written comments must appear in minimum 12-point font size, include
the commenter’s first and last name and full mailing address, and may be of any length.
See also section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality.”
D. Request for hearing
Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public
hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director within the 90-day
comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all
circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.
Disclosure
Copies of this proposed rule and the comments received in response to it are
available through the federal e-rulemaking portal, at https://www.regulations.gov (search
for RIN 1140-AA78).
List of subjects in 27 CFR part 478
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Exports, Freight,
Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Military personnel,
Penalties, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures,
Transportation.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part
478 as follows:
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 478 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921–931; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
2. Add § 478.105 to subpart F to read as follows:
§ 478.105 Straw purchases prohibited.
(a) Prohibited conduct.(1) A person may not obtain a firearm from a person licensed under this part by
being a straw purchaser of a firearm.
(2) A licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector may not sell or deliver
a firearm knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the person to whom the
licensee transfers the weapon is a straw purchaser.
(3) A “straw purchaser” within the meaning of this section includes:
(i) Any person engaged in a straw purchase by making a material false
statement, as described in paragraph (b) of this section; and
(ii) Any person engaged in a straw purchase by purchasing for a prohibited
person described in paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) Straw purchases by making a material false statement. A straw purchase
occurs when a person provides material false or fictitious information to a licensed
importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector that the person is the actual purchaser of the
firearm when, in fact, the person is acquiring the firearm on behalf of another person.
(c) Exclusions. A straw purchase by material false statement, as described in
paragraph (b), does not include any of the following activities:
(1) Purchasing a firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A transaction does
not involve a bona fide gift if the purchaser accepts money, services, or any other
consideration of value in exchange for acquiring the firearm.
(2) Purchasing a firearm by a parent or guardian for his or her minor child;
(3) Acquiring or receiving a firearm by a spouse when the other spouse has paid
for the firearm, provided that both spouses live at the same address;
(4) Redeeming a firearm from pawn or consignment by the lawful owner;
(5) Retrieving a repaired firearm by an individual for a third party;
(6) Collecting a firearm as the winner of a raffle or other award;
(7) Collecting a firearm that was a bona fide gift from another; or(8) Transferring a firearm in accordance with a lawful inheritance or bequest.
(d) Minor child. For purposes of the exception in paragraph (c)(2) of this section,
a “minor” is a person under the age of 21. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall not be
construed to authorize a juvenile, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 922(x)(5), to possess a handgun
when prohibited by law.
(e) Straw purchases by purchasing for a prohibited person.
(1) A straw purchase occurs when a person knowingly purchases, or conspires to
purchase, any firearm on behalf of, or at the request or demand of any other person,
knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such other person:
(i) Is prohibited from receiving a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(d); or
(ii) Intends to use, carry, possess, or sell, or otherwise dispose of a firearm
in furtherance of a felony, a federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking crime; or
(iii) Intends to sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm to another person
described in paragraphs (i) or (ii).
(2) The exceptions listed in paragraph (c) of this section to straw purchasing by a
material false statement do not apply to a straw purchase by a prohibited person.
Robert Cekada,
Director.