NSSF Opposes ATF Proposal for Remote Same-State Gun Sales

Analysis

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry’s trade association, has told the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that it opposes a plan to let licensed dealers sell guns to buyers in their own state who never set foot in the store. In an August 5 comment letter signed by Lawrence G. Keane, the group said the proposal “undermines the ability and role of retailers to serve, as ATF recognizes, as the ‘first line of defense'” against illegal purchases.

ATF published the proposal, Revising Non-Over-the-Counter Firearms Transaction Requirements, on May 8, 2026 (91 FR 25216, RIN 1140-AB05). Comments closed August 6. The objection resurfaced on October 7, when The Trace reviewed nearly 38,000 public comments on 28 ATF proposals and found that this one drew some of its harshest criticism from the gun industry itself. As of October 22, ATF had not published a final rule in the Federal Register, so nothing has changed for dealers yet.

What ATF proposed for sales without a store visit

The Gun Control Act of 1968 has always allowed what ATF calls non-over-the-counter (NOTC) sales, in which a licensed dealer sells a firearm to someone who does not appear at the dealer’s premises. Under 18 U.S.C. 922(c), the buyer signs a sworn statement, the dealer sends it to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) where the buyer lives, and the dealer holds the gun for at least seven days after confirming the notice was delivered or refused.

ATF’s regulation at 27 CFR 478.96 has confined that route to transfers that are exempt from a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check, such as sales to holders of a qualifying state permit. The proposal adds a new paragraph (c) that would open NOTC sales to ordinary transfers that do require a NICS check, as long as the buyer lives in the same state as the dealer’s licensed premises. ATF says nothing in section 922(c) ever limited these sales to NICS-exempt buyers.

The proposed rule text sets out the steps a dealer would follow for each sale:

The buyer sends a completed Form 4473 with a true copy of a valid photo ID, plus proof of residence if the ID does not show a current address.
Before every transfer, the dealer holds a video conference, inspects the buyer’s actual ID on camera, and compares it with the buyer’s face.
The buyer then verifies identity through a credential service provider (CSP), a company whose process an independent third party has assessed against the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2). The match must use a live comparison by a CSP employee or an automated selfie check with liveness detection.
Once the CSP confirms the buyer, the dealer runs the NICS check and waits for a response or the end of the investigatory period before shipping or delivering the gun.

The preamble adds that a dealer cannot reuse an earlier CSP result, so a repeat customer goes through the full check on every purchase. The existing sworn statement and CLEO notice still apply.

The Trace described the measure as allowing online retailers to ship guns directly to customers’ doors. The text is narrower than a national mail-order channel. Only buyers who live in the dealer’s state qualify, and out-of-state sales would still run through a licensed dealer near the buyer.

ATF’s estimates of demand and cost

The Office of Management and Budget classified the proposal as a significant regulatory action because ATF projects annualized savings of $103.7 million, all of it time buyers would save by not driving to a store and waiting at the counter. That figure rests on an assumption that about half of the 6.55 million people ATF estimates buy from dealers each year, or 3.28 million, would buy remotely at least some of the time. ATF asked commenters to test that assumption.

On the dealer side, ATF assumed 10 to 15 percent of the 45,605 active Type 01 dealers it counted on December 23, 2025 would offer remote sales, which works out to about 6,840 stores at the high end. It found that identity vendors already assessed to IAL2 do not publish prices, so it used a $7 verification fee per transaction as a stand-in. At roughly 1.96 million remote purchases a year, that comes to $13.72 million, a charge ATF says would likely be passed to buyers. The agency also noted that small dealers could face more competition from larger in-state retailers that adopt remote sales.

Why NSSF objected

NSSF did not dispute ATF’s legal reading. Its letter says the trade group agrees that sections 922(c) and 922(t) do not prohibit NOTC sales that require a NICS check. Its objection is about what a dealer loses when the counter is replaced by a webcam.

The group polled its membership in July 2026. Of 624 respondents, including 557 retailers, 72% opposed the proposal and 56% strongly opposed it. Only 26% said they would conduct NOTC sales if the rule were finalized.

The letter lists what a video call can hide: the smell of alcohol, signs of drug use, and a second person standing off camera who is directing or coercing the purchase, which ATF’s own straw purchase guidance tells clerks to watch for. NSSF also argued that real-time deepfake tools could let an identity thief impersonate a victim on the dealer’s call and in the CSP check, and that a dealer looking at a scanned ID through a screen cannot handle the card to look for signs of forgery. The group said it was not asking ATF to end the NOTC sales already allowed for permit holders and National Firearms Act transfers.

Who backed the rule and who else opposed it

GrabAGun Digital Holdings Inc., an online and in-store dealer in Coppell, Texas, urged ATF to finalize the rule in an August 6 letter. It argued that NIST-level verification gives “a layered, auditable identity verification process that is arguably more reliable” than a brief counter check, and that the change would help rural buyers and people with disabilities who struggle to reach a store.

The attorneys general of 21 states and the District of Columbia asked ATF to withdraw the proposal in an August 6 multistate letter. They argued that ATF ignored conflicts with state laws that require buyers to appear in person and gave no attention to the risk of people using AI tools to pose as someone else. The public docket, ATF-2026-0266, listed 3,584 posted comments on October 22.

What an online dealer’s checkout would have to handle (analysis)

If ATF finalizes the text as written, remote sales would be an option rather than a mandate, and the work would land on the dealer’s storefront and back office. The proposal points to several things a dealer’s web team would need to check before switching it on.

Residence gating. The cart would have to confirm that the buyer’s residence, as shown on the ID or the separate proof of address, is in the dealer’s licensed state. Shipping address alone would not settle eligibility.

State law. The preamble says a dealer must still meet any legal requirement to transfer in person. States with in-person, permit-to-purchase, or waiting period laws would keep those rules, so the remote option would apply only where state law leaves room for it.

Vendor selection. The dealer, not ATF, would be responsible for confirming that its CSP holds a third-party assessment at IAL2 and Authentication Assurance Level 2 (AAL2). ATF noted that some identity vendors with public pricing, naming Veriff and Sumsub, are not verified by an assessor such as Kantara at those levels, so a vendor’s existing age-verification product may not qualify.

Sequencing. Form upload, video call, CSP check, NICS response, and the CLEO waiting period would all have to happen in order before fulfillment. A NICS delay, which ATF’s cost analysis assumes for about 10 percent of buyers, or a denial would need a clear path to hold, refund, or cancel the order. Dealers that authorize cards at checkout and capture later already face expiring authorizations, a problem covered in EC4IM’s guide to auth-to-capture delays on FFL orders.

Delivery. The rule does not set carrier terms. Federal law at 18 U.S.C. 1715 keeps handguns out of the U.S. mail except for shipments among officials and licensed businesses, so a same-state handgun sale would depend on what a private carrier’s contract allows.

Payment underwriting questions (analysis)

Before taking a first remote order, a dealer would need its acquirer’s approval for a card-not-present handgun sale that ends at the buyer’s door. No existing underwriting file describes that flow, because ATF’s rules do not allow it today, so dealers with accounts placed by Blue Payment Agency or another firearms agent would be updating their applications rather than relying on old ones. The CSP result and the video session record would likely be the main records a dealer could offer if a cardholder later said someone else placed the order.

Where the remote sale proposal stands

ATF’s plan would let dealers sell to same-state buyers after a video ID check, a third-party IAL2 identity match, and a NICS check, keeping the existing sworn statement and CLEO waiting period. The agency counts $103.7 million a year in time saved and expects a modest share of dealers to opt in. NSSF, whose members would be the ones offering the new channel, objected on safety grounds and reported that most members it polled opposed the change, while GrabAGun argued for it and 22 attorneys general asked ATF to drop it. Until a final rule appears, online dealers have no new option to build for, only a draft workflow, a vendor standard, and a set of state law limits worth understanding in advance.

Firearm Industry Trade Group Opposes ATF Plan for Remote Same-State Gun Sales