The latest salvo in the ongoing regulatory war over firearms comes from a coalition of anti-gun attorneys general who have filed comments opposing the ATF’s proposed rule changes—changes that, ironically, were already designed to tighten the screws on lawful gun owners. Rather than pushing back against the agency’s overreach, these AGs are demanding even stricter interpretations, effectively urging the ATF to double down on its mission creep into areas Congress never authorized. It’s a textbook example of how the administrative state and activist state officials work in tandem to bypass legislative processes and chip away at Second Amendment protections under the guise of “public safety.”

What makes this development particularly troubling is the strategic timing and coordination. These AGs aren’t just reacting to the ATF’s proposals—they’re shaping the battlefield for future litigation and regulatory expansion. By framing even modest clarifications as insufficient, they’re laying the groundwork to challenge any future administration that might attempt to roll back these rules. For the 2A community, this signals that the fight isn’t just against the ATF itself, but against a network of state-level actors who will use every lever available—comments, lawsuits, and political pressure—to lock in restrictions regardless of who controls the executive branch.

The implications are clear: gun owners can’t afford to treat proposed rules as isolated skirmishes. Each comment period, each regulatory tweak, is part of a broader campaign to normalize restrictions that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. Staying engaged means more than just monitoring the ATF—it means recognizing when state officials are colluding to make those rules harder to undo. The 2A community’s response must be equally coordinated, because the other side isn’t waiting for the next election to press its advantage.