Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Faced With Litigation (and the Election), ATF Quietly Backed Off Zero Tolerance

Monday, January 27, 2025

Faced With Litigation (and the Election), ATF Quietly Backed Off Zero Tolerance

Last week, the end of a lawsuit over ATF’s infamous “zero tolerance” policy revealed that the agency had already begun walking back its persecutory approach to federal firearm licensee (FFL) inspections in the waning days of the Biden-Harris administration. The information indicates ATF realized its “zero tolerance” approach would not stand up in court. It also suggests ATF officials may have been hedging their bets about the possibility of a change in White House leadership, as well as an accompanying shift in the administration’s respect for the Second Amendment.

NRA-ILA has been reporting on zero tolerance since it was first announced by the Biden-Harris administration in 2021. The policy supposedly targeted “willful” violations of a specified list of infractions, including transferring a firearm to a prohibited person; failing to conduct a required background check; falsifying records, such as a firearms transaction form; failing to respond to a trace request; and refusing to permit ATF to conduct an inspection. A single such violation would, under the policy, presumably result in revocation of the FFL’s license.

Willfulness has specific meaning in the context of federal firearms licensing law and requires the government to prove “a purposeful disregard of, a plain indifference to, or a reckless disregard of a known legal obligation.” The standard was added to the law by the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), specifically to raise the government’s burden in taking adverse actions against FFLs. This was in response to congressional findings that ATF was taking an overly harsh approach to routine inspections of FFLs, including revoking licenses for honest and harmless mistakes, instead of working with the FFLs to improve compliance. In essence, the willfulness standard was meant to require the government to prove bad faith or a gross dereliction of a known legal duty before revoking an FFL.

Yet despite the Biden-Harris administration’s contention that it was targeting “bad apple gun dealers” openly flaunting the law, it ignored its obligations under FOPA and returned to revoking FFLs and ruining livelihoods for harmless paperwork errors. ATF Order 5370.1E, issued on Jan. 28, 2022, provided insights into ATF’s revamped conception of “willfulness” under Biden-Harris’s “zero tolerance.” Indeed, rather than hold itself accountable for establishing the required mental state of the violation, it turned the law on its head by claiming the specified “zero tolerance” violations inherently demonstrated willfulness. 

In the context of “falsifying records,” for example, this could simply mean mistakenly transposing numerals in a serial number or filling in “USA” in the box identifying the transferee’s “County” of residence. In ATF’s view, FFLs knew that they must accurately fill out all the required forms. Therefore, failure to do so “inherently” showed an intention to subvert the process.

Incredibly, the order even insisted that an FFL’s (especially a longstanding FFL’s) prior record of spotless compliance could be used against the business when it later did make a mistake, because it was tantamount to an admission the FFL understood the law. “Use inspection reports to establish willfulness even if the inspection found no violations (i.e., acknowledgement of Federal firearms regulations),” the order instructed. In a similar vein, the inspectors could “[d]emonstrate that the FFL has complied with the specific regulation on other occasions.” Longtime compliance actually worked against the FFL under the scheme. “Demonstrate that the FFL has substantial experience as an FFL,” the order continued.

In its (biased) reporting on the enforcement changes, anti-gun propaganda organ The Trace (funded by gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg) admitted some licenses had been “revoked for minor infractions like writing the wrong reference number on federal forms.”  It also acknowledged, “In roughly a fifth of the cases, we found that supervisors of on-the-ground inspectors overruled recommendations for warnings and revoked the licenses instead. These supervisors often cited the Biden administration’s zero-tolerance policy as justification.”

Indeed, FFLs who hired legal counsel and challenged their revocations were often successful in saving their businesses. But the administration was counting on the fact that many FFLs were small mom and pop type operations that could not afford to take on the U.S. government in administrative or legal proceedings. “In 2024, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives revoked more gun store licenses than in any year over at least the past two decades,” The Trace gleefully reported.

Eventually, however, the ATF’s policy was challenged in a lawsuit by the owner of a Texas gun store, Michael Cargill. The effort noted each transaction form required by federal law for the retail sale of a firearm (the so-called Form 4473) requires nearly 100 inputs, any of which could be affected by a clerical error or a misunderstanding by the customer of the information required. That means a gun shop selling a few thousand guns a year has hundreds of thousands opportunities to wind up with mistakes in its records. Just one such mistake, under zero tolerance, was all it might take for a longstanding, law-abiding business to be shuttered by ATF.

After Cargill’s suit was filed, ATF quietly revoked O 5370.1E and replaced it with ATF O 5370.1G on Aug. 29, 2024. The new order continues to insist, “Consistent with [then President Biden’s] directive on enhanced regulatory enforcement, ATF has zero tolerance for willful violations that put public safety at risk and will take appropriate administrative action.” Yet it omits O 5370.1E’s language about “inherently” willful violations and counsels a more fact specific approach to each case. In particular, it states: “Not every repeat violation is per se willful. A single, or even a few, inadvertent errors in failing to complete forms may not amount to ‘willful’ failures even where the legal requirement to complete the forms was known.”

On Jan. 15, after learning of ATF’s revised enforcement standards, Cargill voluntarily withdrew his lawsuit without prejudice. According to his counsel, Matt Miller, “The new order effectively restores the old enforcement guidance, which means gun stores don’t have to live in fear of honest mistakes.” Cargill himself stated: “Freedom wins today, and overreach has no place in a free society … Faced with defeat, the ATF decided to back down.”

Indeed, even The Trace admitted the changes were apparent in the months after ATF issued its revised order:

Gun store inspection results published by the ATF for the four months following the August change show that revocations happened slightly less often, on average, than in months during the previous two years. In December, historically a slow month for inspections, investigators revoked just six licenses — the lowest total since 2022. 

It is also perhaps more than coincidental that ATF opted for a more nuanced approach as the election loomed and the possibility arose that pandering to firearm prohibition advocates might no longer be good for an ATF official’s career prospects. Indeed, for all his talk about enforcing the law in the interest of public safety, anti-gun ATF director Steven Dettelbach voluntarily stepped aside before facing accountability for his record with the incoming Trump administration. So, as we report elsewhere this week, did anti-gun Attorney General Merrick Garland.

In any case, gun shop owners can now breathe a little easier, knowing ATF inspectors are no longer in the livelihood-hunting business for the Biden-Harris administration. It’s possible some principled ATF officials may even have renewed pride in their work as the pro-Second Amendment Trump administration refocuses the agency on the higher calling of fighting violent crime.

TRENDING NOW
California: Governor Newsom Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law

Monday, October 13, 2025

California: Governor Newsom Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law

For someone who has claimed to be"...deeply mindful and respectful of the Second Amendment and people’s Constitutional rights,” Governor Gavin Newsom has once again proven that actions speak louder than words.

First Affirmative Lawsuit in Support of Gun Owners Filed by Trump’s DOJ

News  

Monday, October 6, 2025

First Affirmative Lawsuit in Support of Gun Owners Filed by Trump’s DOJ

California officials’ egregious foot-dragging over the issuance of carry permits has finally attracted the ire of the federal Department of Justice (DOJ). 

Firearm Prohibition Advocates Mute on Jay Jones “Two Bullets to the Head” Scandal

News  

Monday, October 13, 2025

Firearm Prohibition Advocates Mute on Jay Jones “Two Bullets to the Head” Scandal

Democrat Jay Jones, candidate for Virginia attorney general, still has not suspended his campaign, even as pressure mounts over disclosures that should disqualify, to put it mildly, any individual from serving as the chief law ...

FBI Persists in Underreporting Armed Citizen Defensive Gun Use

News  

Monday, October 13, 2025

FBI Persists in Underreporting Armed Citizen Defensive Gun Use

Three years ago, Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), writing for RealClearInvestigations, described how the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was vastly undercounting, “by an order of more than three the number of instances in ...

NRA Files Another Lawsuit Challenging the National Firearms Act

Thursday, October 9, 2025

NRA Files Another Lawsuit Challenging the National Firearms Act

Today, the National Rifle Association—along with the American Suppressor Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation—announced the filing of another lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

NRA Files Lawsuit Challenging California’s Glock Ban

Monday, October 13, 2025

NRA Files Lawsuit Challenging California’s Glock Ban

Today, the National Rifle Association—along with Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Poway Weapons & Gear, and two NRA members—filed a lawsuit challenging California’s Glock ban.

Rehearing En Banc Sought in NRA-Supported Challenge to New Jersey’s Carry Restrictions

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

Rehearing En Banc Sought in NRA-Supported Challenge to New Jersey’s Carry Restrictions

Today, the National Rifle Association announced the filing of a petition for rehearing en banc in Siegel v. Platkin, a challenge to New Jersey’s carry restrictions.

US Virgin Islands: Sweeping Gun Control Measures Advance

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

US Virgin Islands: Sweeping Gun Control Measures Advance

The 36th Legislature of the US Virgin Islands is continuing to advance sweeping gun control measures through the legislative process.

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Ban on Firearms Possession by Nonviolent Felons

Thursday, October 9, 2025

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to Ban on Firearms Possession by Nonviolent Felons

Today, the National Rifle Association, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and FPC Action Foundation, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the federal lifetime prohibition on ...

North Carolina: Update on Permitless Carry

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

North Carolina: Update on Permitless Carry

Last week the North Carolina General Assembly briefly returned from recess and re-referred Senate Bill 50, Freedom to Carry NC, to the House Rules Committee.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.