TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport is co-leading a coalition of 23 attorneys general opposing a series of proposed changes to federal firearms regulations, arguing the changes could threaten public safety and make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate gun crimes.
The coalition submitted a series of comment letters between July 6 and Aug. 6 in response to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ plans to change dozens of firearms regulations.
The ATF announced this spring that it planned to review and reform 34 firearms regulations. Davenport and the other attorneys general contend that several of the proposed changes conflict with federal law, exceed the agency’s authority or could undermine firearms investigations.
“ATF’s plan to deregulate firearms will put New Jerseyans at risk and erode the tremendous gains we have made in reducing gun violence over the past few years,” said Attorney General Davenport. “In addition to endangering families simply going about their days, this effort to eviscerate sensible gun regulations will also imperil law enforcement and first responders, who regularly put themselves in harm’s way to protect or rescue us. These proposed changes simply make no sense.”
Among the changes opposed by the coalition is a proposal involving background checks under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The attorneys general argue that allowing people with certain state-issued permits to make purchases without undergoing federal background checks could increase the risk of prohibited individuals obtaining firearms and contribute to illegal interstate trafficking.
The coalition is also challenging proposed changes to federal firearms dealer licensing requirements. The attorneys general contend those changes could allow more people to sell firearms without conducting background checks or maintaining sales records and would conflict with the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
Another proposal would change identity verification requirements for people purchasing firearms without appearing in person. The coalition argues that allowing remote identity verification could make it more difficult to confirm the identity and eligibility of buyers.
The attorneys general also oppose proposed changes involving straw purchases, in which one person purchases a firearm on behalf of another. The coalition argues that proposed exemptions could make it easier for people prohibited from possessing firearms to obtain them through intermediaries.
Other proposed changes involve the standards used by the ATF to revoke federal firearms licenses. Federal law allows the agency to revoke a dealer’s license for willful violations. The coalition contends that raising the standard for determining what constitutes a willful violation could make enforcement against noncompliant dealers more difficult.
The attorneys general are also challenging two proposals concerning the importation of firearms and firearm parts. According to the coalition, the changes could make it easier to import certain military-style firearm components and bring firearms into foreign trade zones.
Another proposal would eliminate requirements for gun dealers to display notices concerning the Youth Handgun Safety Act. The notices inform customers about restrictions on transferring handguns to people under 18 and warn about risks associated with handguns and young people.
The coalition also opposes the proposed rescission of an existing ATF rule governing stabilizing braces without a replacement regulation. Stabilizing braces can be attached to pistols, and their treatment under federal firearms law has been the subject of regulatory and legal disputes.
Other changes challenged by the attorneys general involve interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition. The coalition argues that proposed language covering activities incidental to interstate travel could affect the transportation of firearm accessories through states where those items are prohibited.
The attorneys general are also opposing changes to Form 4473, the firearms transaction record completed when a licensed dealer sells a firearm. Proposed changes include allowing certain nongovernment documents to establish residency and extending the period during which a background check remains valid from 30 days to two months.
The coalition argues those changes, along with a separate proposal involving how sex is recorded on ATF forms, could make it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to trace firearms.
Another proposal would change federal requirements governing how long certain firearms records must be retained. Records currently required to be kept indefinitely could instead be destroyed after 20 or 30 years. The attorneys general contend older records can remain important in tracing firearms and investigating crimes.
The coalition is also challenging proposed changes to federal terminology governing firearm possession by people who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent or committed to a mental institution. The attorneys general argue that narrowing the category could allow some people currently prohibited from possessing firearms to legally purchase them.
In addition to the broader regulatory challenges, the attorneys general submitted a July 6 comment letter opposing five proposed changes to regulations under the National Firearms Act, the federal law regulating machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. They also opposed a separate set of proposed changes to Form 4473.
Davenport co-led the letters with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington also joined all or most of the letters.
