Attorney General James co-leads 22-state coalition opposing Trump administration’s sweeping rollback of federal gun safety protections

New York – New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading a multistate challenge to a broad effort by the Trump administration to roll back federal gun safety regulations, arguing that the proposed changes could weaken protections that have been used for decades to prevent dangerous people from obtaining firearms and to help law enforcement investigate gun crimes.

James joined attorneys general from 22 other states and the District of Columbia in submitting 13 comment letters to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF. The letters challenge a series of regulatory proposals introduced by the federal agency since May 2026.

According to the coalition, the ATF has proposed rolling back or eliminating 32 firearm regulations. The attorneys general say the rules cover areas ranging from background checks and firearm sales to gun trafficking, dealer licensing, recordkeeping and the importation of certain weapons and parts.

The coalition argues that the proposals are not supported by sufficient evidence and, in several cases, go beyond the authority given to the ATF by Congress. The states also contend that the agency has failed to properly explain some of the changes and has not followed requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act.

James said the proposed changes could make it easier for firearms to reach people who are prohibited from possessing them while making investigations more difficult for police and other law enforcement agencies.

“Every New Yorker deserves to feel safe in their community. These reckless proposals would make it easier for dangerous weapons to fall into the wrong hands while making it harder for law enforcement to stop gun violence and solve crimes,” said Attorney General James. “The Trump administration is trying to erase decades of bipartisan progress that has helped reduce gun violence and save lives. We are calling on ATF to abandon these unlawful proposals and uphold its responsibility to protect the public instead of putting the interests of the gun industry first.”

At the center of the dispute are several changes that the states say could weaken the federal background-check system. One proposal would allow people with certain state-issued permits to buy firearms without completing the federally required background check.

The Brady Act, enacted in 1993 following the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, established federal requirements for background checks on firearm purchasers. The attorneys general argue that creating an exemption for certain permit holders would open another path for prohibited buyers and gun traffickers to acquire firearms.

The coalition is also challenging a proposal concerning federal restrictions on firearm possession by people with certain serious mental health conditions. The states say the ATF wants to narrow the categories of individuals covered by the restrictions.

The attorneys general point to the agency’s own acknowledgment that the proposal could increase the risk of mass casualty events. They argue that moving forward despite that concern would be inconsistent with the government’s responsibility to protect public safety.

Another major concern involves who must obtain a federal firearms license. Under the proposed ATF regulation, the coalition says there could be greater uncertainty about when someone selling firearms is considered a dealer and therefore required to become licensed.

The states warn that the change could allow more sellers to operate without conducting background checks or keeping required sales records. They say this could weaken reforms included in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which followed mass shootings including the attack at Tops Friendly Markets in Buffalo and the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

The coalition is also objecting to proposed changes involving online firearm purchases. The states say allowing remote identity verification could make it easier for children and other prohibited or dangerous individuals to obtain firearms.

According to the attorneys general, the proposal would conflict with the federal Gun Control Act and Supreme Court precedent. They also characterize the change as a policy that would benefit firearms manufacturers while reducing safeguards surrounding online purchases.

Straw purchases are another focus of the multistate challenge. A straw purchase occurs when a person legally able to buy a firearm purchases it for someone who is prohibited from doing so. The coalition says the ATF’s proposed changes could create uncertainty about which transactions qualify as illegal straw purchases.

The attorneys general argue that this uncertainty could produce a loophole that prohibited buyers could exploit. They say clear rules are particularly important because straw purchases can be used to move firearms from legal sellers into the hands of people who cannot legally possess them.

The states are also challenging a proposal that would make it more difficult for federal authorities to revoke the licenses of firearms dealers who violate federal law.

Federal law permits the ATF to revoke a dealer’s license when the dealer “willfully” violates the law. The proposed rule would raise the standard for determining what constitutes a willful violation.

The coalition argues that the change would conflict with established law and weaken the federal licensing system. In the states’ view, making revocation more difficult could allow dealers with serious violations to remain in business and continue selling firearms.

Importation rules are also part of the dispute. Two separate ATF proposals would make it easier to import firearms and firearm parts into the United States, including components associated with assault weapons and military-style firearms.

Read also: Excelsior Communities buys First Federal Plaza in downtown Rochester with plans for a major mixed-use redevelopment

The attorneys general say those changes could undermine existing federal restrictions designed to protect public safety. They argue that the ATF has not adequately explained why such changes are necessary or why the potential risks would be acceptable.

The coalition is also opposing a proposal that would eliminate notices that gun dealers are required to post under the Youth Handgun Safety Act.

Those notices inform buyers about the dangers handguns pose to young people and explain that transferring a handgun to someone under 18 is generally illegal. The states say the ATF is incorrectly claiming it lacks the authority to require the notices.

The attorneys general argue that the notices serve an important educational purpose and that removing them could contribute to an increase in gun violence involving young people.

Another proposed change involves stabilizing braces, devices that can be used with certain pistols. The ATF wants to rescind an existing rule that clarified how stabilizing braces are regulated.

The states say the agency has not proposed an adequate replacement. Instead, they argue, the change could leave a regulatory gap and create confusion for gun owners, dealers and law enforcement.

The coalition says the ATF should have considered the potential public safety and enforcement consequences before proposing the change.

Travel protections for firearms and accessories are also being challenged. The attorneys general say the ATF is seeking to broaden federal protections for people transporting firearms and related items between states.

Under the proposed approach, the coalition argues, people could potentially transport certain dangerous gun accessories into states where those items are prohibited. New York is specifically cited as one state where some of the accessories could be banned under state law.

The states say federal regulations should not be changed in a way that interferes with states’ ability to enforce their own firearm restrictions.

Recordkeeping is another central issue in the attorneys general’s objections. Licensed firearms dealers use ATF Form 4473 for firearm transactions, and the form contains information that can be important to law enforcement investigations.

The coalition says proposed changes would weaken residency requirements and extend the period during which a background check remains valid. The states argue that both changes could make transaction records less reliable.

That, in turn, could make it harder for investigators to connect firearms recovered at crime scenes with previous sales and purchasers.

The states are also challenging changes to the information collected on federal firearm forms. One proposal would alter how identifying information is collected by asking purchasers about biological sex.

The attorneys general contend that the change could complicate the process of tracing firearms used in crimes. They also say it could create unnecessary confusion for people who are legally purchasing firearms and could raise questions involving Second Amendment rights.

Perhaps one of the coalition’s strongest objections concerns the length of time firearm transaction records would be retained.

Under current requirements, records tracking the sale and chain of custody of firearms are maintained indefinitely. Investigators can use those records years after a firearm was originally sold when attempting to reconstruct its history.

The ATF has proposed requiring some records to be destroyed after 20 or 30 years. The states argue that destroying those records could directly interfere with investigations and prosecutions involving firearms.

A gun recovered at a crime scene may have changed hands several times before investigators find it. The coalition says older records can therefore remain important even decades after a firearm first entered the commercial market.

In addition to the 13 comment letters submitted during the latest effort, James and the coalition last month challenged five proposed changes to regulations governing the National Firearms Act.

Those rules cover certain highly regulated weapons and devices, including machine guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns.

The attorneys general also submitted a separate letter concerning proposed revisions to ATF Form 4473. They say those revisions could make it easier for straw purchasers to acquire firearms and more difficult for investigators to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

The broader dispute reflects a significant clash over the federal government’s approach to firearm regulation. The Trump administration’s proposed changes would affect a wide range of rules that have been used to regulate firearm sales, ownership, transportation, imports and recordkeeping.

Read also: Irondequoit police officer hospitalized after being injured during Saturday night domestic incident

The attorneys general maintain that the ATF cannot simply dismantle or substantially weaken those protections without following federal law and providing a sound justification for the changes.

They also argue that the agency must take into account the impact its decisions could have on state and local governments. According to the coalition, some of the proposals were issued without the consultation with states that should have occurred before major changes were considered.

The states further allege that the proposals appear to reflect undisclosed influence from the firearms industry. They say public safety, rather than industry interests, should guide federal firearm policy.

For James, the issue extends beyond New York. The coalition’s members argue that changes to federal firearm rules can have consequences across state borders because guns are frequently bought, sold, transported and used in multiple jurisdictions.

A federal rule that makes a firearm easier to purchase, transport or trace could therefore affect investigations and enforcement far beyond the state where the original transaction occurred.

The coalition includes attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, along with the District of Columbia.

Together, the states are asking the ATF to abandon the proposed changes they consider unlawful and dangerous. Their comment letters argue that existing federal safeguards reflect congressional decisions made over many years and should not be weakened without strong legal and factual justification.

The administration’s proposals remain subject to the federal regulatory process, meaning the rules have not simply taken effect because the ATF proposed them. The comments submitted by James and the other attorneys general form part of that process and formally place the states’ legal and public safety objections before the agency.

The fight could ultimately move beyond the regulatory process if the federal government proceeds with the contested rules. For now, however, the coalition is urging the ATF to reconsider the proposals before they become final.

James and her counterparts say the stakes are particularly high because many of the rules at issue involve the systems used to prevent prohibited people from obtaining guns and the records investigators rely on after firearms are used in crimes.

Their central argument is that weakening those systems would not only change federal firearm policy but could also make it harder for states and local law enforcement agencies to respond to gun violence.

The coalition is therefore calling on the ATF to preserve the regulations it says have helped prevent illegal firearm sales, support criminal investigations and limit access to guns by people prohibited under federal law.

For the attorneys general, the proposed rollback represents more than a series of technical regulatory changes. They argue that taken together, the measures could significantly reshape the federal framework governing firearms in the United States, while reducing safeguards that states have relied on to protect their residents.

The next steps will depend on how the ATF responds to the public comments and whether it moves forward with the proposed rules. James and the other attorneys general have made clear that they intend to challenge the changes through legal and regulatory channels, arguing that public safety protections should not be dismantled without lawful authority and adequate justification.