05/17/2026
The ATF's recent proposed changes to firearm sales/transfers will weaken many state firearm sales/transfers laws. These changes will increase gun trafficking, straw sales, and gun violence. Additionally, under the ATF proposed changes, fi****ms would be allowed to be mailed via the US Postal Service. Donald Trump Junior is heavily involved in an online gun sales scheme that would directly benefit from all of these weakened laws -- and readily arm criminals.
Disclaimer: the following is not legal advice.
The US should be worried about these proposed changes because they will increase trafficking and illegal sales. The recent ATF proposals, however, likely won’t weaken the Oregon's firearm sale/transfer laws. The Oregon Firearm Safety Act (SB 941, Universal Background Checks) requirement for in-person sale or transfer of fi****ms AND Measure 114 (which takes effect in 2028) take precedent OVER THE PROPOSED CHANGES. That is good news for Oregon but not for states with weak gun purchasing laws -- and not for anyone who is the target of these armed people.
Oregon’s laws are independent, state-level restrictions that can be stricter than federal baseline rules while the proposed ATF changes mostly affect federal dealer procedure and flexibility.
An Oregon resident cannot skirt Oregon firearm purchasing laws by purchasing a firearm in a state with weaker firearm purchasing laws than Oregon’s. That Oregon law holds for people who attempt to purchase a firearm online. Federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3) requires a federally licensed fi****ms dealer (FFL) selling a firearm to an out-of-state resident to ensure the transaction complies with the laws of both the dealer’s state, and the purchaser’s state of residence.
Requiring buyers to appear in person reduces opportunities for illegal trafficking, straw purchases, and unlawful transfers. Weakening that standard risks making it easier for fi****ms to move into the wrong hands.
Oregon can stand firm on our current universal background check law because, after the massacre at Sandy Hook, Oregonians worked with Democratic majorities in the Oregon House and Senate to pass our universal background check law.
But not every Democrat stood with public safety.
Three Oregon House Democrats voted against the life-saving universal background checks law: Jeff Barker (Aloha), Caddy McKeown (Coos Bay), and Brad Witt (Clatskanie). One Oregon Senate Democrat voted no: Betsy Johnson (Scappoose).
This example is why strong state laws are crucial. As we witness federal regulators consider changes that could weaken in-person firearm transfer safeguards, historic and recent votes deserve renewed scrutiny. Oregonians should demand answers from today’s Democratic legislators about why they voted to delay implementation of Measure 114 (HB 4151) and failed to enact stronger standards for federally licensed fi****ms dealers operating in Oregon.
But back to the proposed ATF changes. Here’s how the proposed ATF changes do -- and do not -- impact Oregon’s current law and Measure 114:
1. Current Oregon law (the Oregon Fi****ms Safety Act)
Under Oregon law, firearm sales and transfers must be conducted in person through an FFL, with Oregon-specific transfer procedures layered on top of federal Brady/NICS requirements. (A few exemptions exist.)
HB 4145 (2026) separately delayed Measure 114’s permit-to-purchase and magazine provisions until January 1, 2028. (olis.oregonlegislature.gov) WHY??? Ask your Democratic rep or senator.
That means right now in Oregon:
-Federal background-check requirements still apply.
-Oregon transfer rules still apply.
-The Measure 114 permit requirement is not yet enacted but Measure 114 requires even higher standards of firearm ownership than our current law does. Measure 114 is not likely to be weakened by the ATF proposed ruling because states can impose stricter procedural requirements than ATF regulation
That last point is the key: Federal rules set the floor. Oregon has a much higher ceiling.
2. What ATF proposal 1140-AB05 actually changes:
This proposal would authorize more flexible non-over-the-counter (NOTC) same-state firearm transactions by FFLs.
In plain English: it appears designed to allow transactions that aren’t strictly conducted across a dealer counter in the traditional brick-and-mortar way — for example, more flexible identity verification and transaction handling, while still requiring Brady compliance. (ATF)
Would that override Oregon’s in-person requirement? No.
If Oregon law states that a firearm transfer must occur in person under Oregon procedure then a federal rule allowing more flexible dealer processing does not preempt that stricter state requirement, unless Congress expressly preempted state law (which is not what this ATF proposal does).
So if AB05 becomes final:
In Oregon today, dealers would still be required to comply with Oregon’s in-person transfer rules under the Oregon FIrearm Safety Act (SB 941).
The ATF changes might streamline dealer backend processes (record keeping, identity verification methods), but it would not create remote firearm sales in Oregon if state law prohibits them.
3. What ATF proposal 1140-AA85 does:
This proposal clarifies when a state-issued firearm permit can substitute for a federal NICS background check under the Brady Act.
ATF is tightening clarity around whether a permit:
-is valid and unexpired
-is backed by qualifying statutory language
-satisfies Brady alternative requirements (ATF)
The ATF proposed ruling also calls for removing the "Non Binary" selection for s*x. The current form (4473) has "Male" "Female" and "Non Binary," (But did not not prevent the ATF from using the non-binary term "their" when referring to one person's name in the very next section.)
4. How this could affect Measure 114 in 2028
When Measure 114 takes effect on January 1, 2028, Oregon purchasers would need:
-a permit to purchase
-completed background check
-training / qualification requirements under state law
The big federal question is: Will Oregon’s permit qualify as a Brady-exempt alternative under ATF’s clarified standards? Measure 114 requires a completed background check prior to every sale or transfer of a firearm AFTER the person already has a permit to purchase a firearm. Why? Because permits are valid for four years and a person might become a prohibited purchaser in the time between the issuance of the permit and the purchase of a firearm.
5. Could ATF changes affect possession? Very little.
These proposals mostly govern:
-transfer mechanics
-dealer procedures
-permit recognition
-record keeping
They do not directly alter who may lawfully possess fi****ms under Oregon law, nor do they change Measure 114’s large-capacity magazine restrictions scheduled for 2028. (olis.oregonlegislature.gov)
Possession questions remain governed by Oregon laws.
The practical political takeaway:
For Oregon advocates, AA85 is the one worth watching closely.
If Oregon wants Measure 114 implementation to be administratively strong in 2028, state rulemaking should likely be drafted with ATF’s clarified Brady-alternative standards in mind.
AB05 likely will not impact Oregon unless the legislature later loosens in-person transfer requirements.
So the real answer is:
ATF’s recent proposals probably won’t meaningfully weaken Oregon’s current firearm-sale restrictions, but AA85 could shape whether Measure 114 functions as a streamlined permit system or a permit-plus-NICS double-check system when it finally takes effect.
You can watch Aaron Parnas's video about the ATF's proposed rulings. The link to a PDF of the proposed ruling is in the comment section.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpxwxvs3024
Penny Okamoto
Ceasefire Oregon Action Fund
Aaron Parnas presents findings from an exclusive investigation into Trump's marketplace he has been creating. Tune in to find out what exactly Trump and his ...
