Gun Owners of America
AdvocacyOppose
Definition of "engaged in business"
Second amendment rights
Regulations Defining Engaged in the Business as a Dealer in Firearms
ATF-2026-0074-0001NPRM
Comments
161
Last activity Jul 28, 2026
Deadline
6 days
Closes Aug 5, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
-49%
-49% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Regulations Defining Engaged in the Business as a Dealer in Firearms
- Posted
- May 6, 2026
- Comment period
- May 6, 2026 – Aug 5, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-08919
- CFR
- 27 CFR Part 478
- Topics
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Stance breakdown
-49%
Net support
Support40Oppose119Other2
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is -49% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Business
2
Individual
154
Trade association
2
Advocacy
3
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted May 6, 2026Deadline Aug 5, 2026
May 4May 18Jun 1Jun 22Jul 6Jul 20Jul 27
Support40Oppose119Other2
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
25%
74%
1%
Advocacy
0%
100%
0%
Business
50%
50%
0%
Trade association
50%
50%
0%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Private firearm sales87
Definition of "engaged in business"45
Private sale restrictions45
Rescission of 2024 rule45
Second amendment rights35
Private seller safe harbors33
Statutory interpretation and clarity28
Private sale background checks22
Regulatory overreach and legal doctrines19
Scope of business rule11
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Choose up to five.
1 organization filed this week — visible to subscribers.
| Organization | Definition of "engaged in business" | Second amendment rights |
|---|---|---|
Gun Owners of America AdvocacyOppose Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation oppose the proposed rule, arguing that it fails to sufficiently walk bac |
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- 1 comment from the past week
One comment matches your current view and arrived in the last week. Read this week's comments with stance, commenter type, and AI summaries on the paid plan.
- Jul 20, 2026Josh AppleOpposeIndividual
The commenter, an individual who recently administered a firearm estate, opposes the proposed rule because it preserves legal theories they believe were already rejected by the courts. They argue the rule could unfairly expose innocent individuals to prosecution and urge the ATF to rescind the previous framework entirely in favor of a rule that follows plain statutory language.
Read comment → - Jul 18, 2026William JansenOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed regulations, arguing that the ATF should rescind the 2024 Biden rule and instead issue a new rule that strictly follows plain statutory language and respects limits imposed by Congress. They specifically advocate for removing provisions that use personal collection activities or intent alone as evidence of unlicensed dealing.
Read comment → - Jul 17, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it preserves legal theories already rejected by federal courts. They urge the ATF to rescind the previous "Engaged in the Business" framework entirely and issue a new rule that strictly follows federal statutory language.
Read comment → - Jul 17, 2026Keith ElderOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it preserves legal theories already rejected by federal courts. They urge the ATF to rescind the previous "Engaged in the Business" framework entirely and issue a new rule that strictly follows federal statutory language.
Read comment → - Jul 17, 2026Mark von DwingeloOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it preserves legal theories already rejected by federal courts. They urge the ATF to rescind the previous "Engaged in the Business" framework entirely and issue a new rule that strictly follows federal statutory language.
Read comment → - Jul 17, 2026Dan NoakesSupportIndividual
An individual commenter supports the general purpose of the proposed rule to reduce infringements on the right to keep and bear arms but urges the ATF to further refine it by rescinding specific provisions of the 2024 Biden rule and adhering strictly to statutory language.
Read comment → - Jul 17, 2026Joe WilsonOpposeIndividual
A private firearm collector opposes the proposed rule because it fails to fully rescind the previous "engaged in business" framework. The commenter argues that the rule still allows for the criminalization of personal collection activities and requests a new rule that strictly follows federal statutory language.
Read comment → - Jul 17, 2026Raymond HradekOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it preserves legal theories already rejected by federal courts. They urge the ATF to rescind the previous "Engaged in the Business" framework entirely and issue a new rule that strictly follows federal statutory language.
Read comment → - Jul 17, 2026Ron RaderOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it preserves legal theories already rejected by federal courts. They urge the ATF to rescind the previous "Engaged in the Business" framework entirely and issue a new rule that strictly follows federal statutory language.
Read comment → - Jul 17, 2026John LatzOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it preserves legal theories already rejected by the courts and continues to threaten law-abiding individuals. They urge the ATF to rescind the existing framework entirely and issue a new rule that strictly follows federal statutory language.
Read comment →