Last updated: August 11, 2026
Where TheGunDock stands, read this first
We support this rule and we intend to offer it the day it becomes available. We already run the pieces this would depend on: licensed dealer transfers into all 50 states and the territories, electronic FFL document handling and verification, compliance checks on every order before it ships, and firearm records managed through our bound book system.
We are actively building the additional pieces the proposal would require, including the remote identity verification standard it calls for, the law enforcement notification step, and the seven day hold that has to run before a firearm can ship. Our goal is that when this becomes available, a qualifying customer places the order and we handle the compliance work behind the scenes, the same way we handle FFL coordination today.
We will say plainly what we cannot do: we cannot offer this before it is finalized, we cannot offer it across state lines, and we cannot offer it where state law forbids it. More on all three below.
The short answer
One of the most common questions we get is some version of the same thing: why can't you just ship the gun to my house? For a rifle or a pistol, the answer has always been that federal law requires the transfer to happen through a licensed dealer near you.
That may be changing for some buyers. But this is not a bill and it is not law. It is a proposed regulation from ATF, and as of August 2026 it has not been finalized. Even if it is finalized exactly as written, it would apply only to sales where the dealer and the buyer are in the same state. Buying a firearm from an out of state retailer would still require shipment to a licensed dealer near you.
What the proposal is
The rule is titled Revising Non-Over-the-Counter Firearms Transaction Requirements. It was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 25216 on May 8, 2026, under Docket No. ATF-2026-0266 (RIN 1140-AB05). The public comment period closed on August 6, 2026.
To understand what it changes, you need to know that federal law already allows something called a non-over-the-counter sale. Under 18 U.S.C. 922(c), a licensed dealer can transfer a firearm to a buyer in the same state who does not physically appear at the shop. That authority has been on the books since the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The catch has been a regulatory limit. Under the current version of 27 CFR 478.96(b), those transfers have effectively been confined to transactions that were exempt from a background check. Since the overwhelming majority of retail sales require a check, the provision has gone almost entirely unused.
The proposed rule removes that limitation. A dealer could complete a non-over-the-counter sale even when a NICS background check is required, which is what would make it usable for ordinary retail purchases for the first time.
What would still be required
This is the part left out of most of the coverage. The statutory requirements in 922(c) do not go away, and they are substantial.
- A sworn statement. The buyer submits a statement under penalty of perjury attesting they are at least 21 for a handgun or 18 for a rifle or shotgun, that they are not prohibited under 922(g) or 922(n), and that receiving the firearm would not violate state or local law. It must also name the principal law enforcement officer where delivery occurs.
- Law enforcement notification. Before shipping, the dealer forwards that sworn statement and a description of the firearm to the chief law enforcement officer in the buyer's area. Public Law 118-159 modernized this to allow verified electronic notification to an address the officer has voluntarily designated, rather than only registered or certified mail.
- A seven day waiting period. The dealer must wait at least seven days after receiving notification that the law enforcement notice was accepted or refused before the firearm ships. There is no way around this one. It is written into the statute, not the regulation.
- Form 4473 and a full NICS background check. Nothing about the proposal removes either.
- Remote identity verification. The proposal requires identity proofing meeting NIST SP 800-63-4 at Identity Assurance Level 2. In practice that means strong identity evidence such as a REAL ID or passport validated against the issuing source, a second piece of evidence, a biometric face comparison against the photo on the ID with liveness detection, and confirmation of your address of record through an enrollment code.
Added up, a non-over-the-counter purchase would involve more steps and more waiting than driving to a dealer, not fewer.
Who this would actually help
The buyers who stand to benefit are those for whom reaching a gun shop is genuinely difficult: buyers in rural areas hours from the nearest dealer, buyers with disabilities or mobility limitations, and buyers whose work schedules do not line up with shop hours.
Be clear about the size of that group. This helps you if you are buying from a dealer in your own state who is willing to do the paperwork, the law enforcement notice, and the identity proofing, and you are willing to wait at least seven days.
Who this does not help
If you are buying from an online retailer in another state, this proposal does not change your purchase at all.
The reason is 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3), which restricts a dealer from selling a firearm to a resident of a different state. The proposed rule does not touch it. A handgun purchased from an out of state dealer still ships to a licensed dealer in your state for the transfer. That covers the overwhelming majority of online firearm purchases, including most of what we ship.
So if you order a pistol from us and you are not in Kentucky, you will still select an FFL near you and pick it up there, exactly as you do today.
State law still controls
A federal regulation cannot override a stricter state law. Even if this rule is finalized, states that require an in person transfer, a permit to purchase, a state point of sale system, or their own waiting period would continue to block or effectively block home delivery.
States with laws in that category include California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Colorado, and the District of Columbia. That list is not exhaustive and these statutes change, so check the current law where you live rather than relying on any list, including this one.
Questions people are asking
Is this a law right now?
No. It is a proposed rule. The comment period closed August 6, 2026, and ATF now has to review the comments and produce a final rule, which then goes through review at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Nothing about how you buy a firearm has changed.
When would it take effect?
Realistically not soon. Comment review plus regulatory review typically runs several months, a final rule in 2027 would be a reasonable expectation, and final rules normally carry an effective date another 60 to 120 days out. A rule of this significance would also very likely be challenged in court, which can delay implementation further.
Does it cover handguns, or just long guns?
Both. It applies to firearms under the Gun Control Act generally. The age requirements differ, 21 for a handgun and 18 for a rifle or shotgun, and those are unchanged.
Would I still need a background check?
Yes. That is the entire point of the change. The current regulation only permits non-over-the-counter sales when no check is required. The proposal would allow them with a check, meaning Form 4473 and NICS both still apply.
Could I skip the seven day wait?
No. The waiting period is in the statute itself, so ATF cannot remove it by regulation. Only Congress could change that.
Does this mean guns can be sold entirely online with no oversight?
No, and this is the core of the disagreement over the proposal. Every transaction still runs through a licensed dealer who records the sale on a Form 4473, runs a NICS check, notifies law enforcement, and retains the records. What changes is whether the buyer has to be standing at the counter.
What are the arguments against it?
Opponents, including a large public comment campaign organized by Everytown, argue that removing the face to face element makes it harder for a dealer to notice the warning signs of a straw purchase or a buyer in crisis, and that it moves firearm sales further toward a fully remote model. Supporters, including NSSF, the NRA, and Gun Owners of America, point out that Congress already authorized non-over-the-counter sales in 1968, that the identity proofing standard proposed is considerably stronger than a clerk glancing at a driver's license, and that the current rule leaves rural and disabled buyers with the fewest options.
Should I wait to buy?
We would not plan a purchase around it. Nothing is final, the timeline runs into 2027 at the earliest, litigation is likely, and if you are buying from out of state it would not apply to you regardless.
What this means if you buy from us
Nothing changes today. If your order includes a firearm, it ships to the licensed dealer you select and you complete the transfer there. That is federal law and it is not affected by a proposal that has not been finalized.
What we can tell you is that we are not going to be caught flat footed on it. We are building toward it now so that if and when it is finalized, customers who qualify can use it through us without a scramble. We will update this page as the rule moves, and if anything changes about how your order is handled, you will hear it from us directly rather than having to go read the Federal Register.
If you have a question about how a specific order will ship, or what your state requires, contact us and we will tell you exactly what applies to your situation.
