ATF Director Robert Cekada took to social media on Wednesday to slam MS Now host Rachel Maddow and a former ATF agent now working for Everytown for Gun Safety over claims that a proposed rule allowing some direct sales of firearms will allow criminals to more easily acquire guns.
2/2
Most consumers don’t want 1960s-era in-person paperwork anymore. Neither does ATF. But we will ensure every sale still goes through a licensed dealer and every purchaser still has a background check and his identity verified. ATF is modernizing processes, not removing them.
— Robert Cekada (@ATFDirectorRC) July 8, 2026
I wish Cekada had done a longer thread pointing out all of the issues with Maddow’s segment, but he does have a job to do so I’ll cut him some slack.
From the outset, though, Maddow’s contempt for gun owners was on full display, as she claimed that the very first bill passed by Republicans in 2017 made it easier for mentally ill people to buy guns.
The bill in question rescinded a policy put in place by the Obama administration that treated those who had a fiduciary appointed to manage their Social Security benefits as though they had been adjudicated as mentally ill, which disqualified them from being able to legally purchase or possess firearms. While some individuals who’ve had a fiduciary appointed may very well suffer from a debilitating mental illness or be prone to violence, the policy painted with far too broad a brush.
The ATF has now proposed revising the rule about those adjudicated as mentally ill to better clarify what it means to be “adjudicated. As the agency wrote in its proposed rule change:
ATF believes its current regulation defining “adjudicated as a mental defective” is overbroad because it encompasses individuals who do not suffer from the kinds of mental disabilities that fell within the term “mental defective” at the time the GCA was enacted. Specifically, the regulation—at least as the 1997 final rule has been interpreted—encompasses individuals who have narrow functional deficits, such as the inability only to manage financial benefits. Those with isolated functional deficits are not the kind of individuals who were understood to be mentally defective as that term was used in the GCA. Nor are such individuals the kind of irresponsible or dangerous persons who Congress sought to prohibit from possessing firearms under sections 922(g)(4) and (d)(4).
… ATF believes its current regulations also fail to properly distinguish between “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution.” For example, in the 1997 final rule, ATF accepted the DoD’s comment that the definition of “mental defective” should be adjusted to also include certain military personnel who were “found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility,” and therefore necessarily committed. 62 FR 34637.[] But individuals who are involuntarily committed in that way should be primarily disqualified based on the “committed to a mental institution” prong of 18 U.S.C. 922 (g)(4) and (d)(4), not the “adjudicated as a mental defective” prong.[] Similarly, ATF understands that individuals found by courts to be “a danger to [themselves] or to others,” or found “not guilty by reason of insanity,” will likely be committed to mental institutions. ATF’s current regulatory classification of these individuals as “mental defective[s]” thus appears to improperly blend two different disqualifications under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) and (d)(4).
This proposed rule would thus make two principal changes to ATF’s current regulatory definitions. First, the proposed rule would clarify that the term “adjudicated as a mental defective” describes specifically those individuals who, as a result of a serious global intellectual deficit, cannot responsibly handle firearms. The rule would make clear that individuals who present solely with isolated functional deficits, such as the inability to manage their government benefits, are not mentally defective within the meaning of the GCA. Second, the proposed rule would more explicitly distinguish the “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution” prongs of sections 922(g)(4) and (d)(4). ATF requests comments on this proposed further distinction.
As with any proposed rule change, the ATF is required to outline the potential pros and cons. The agency wrote that there is a risk of violent individuals purchasing firearms who might otherwise have been unable to do so, noting “this risk may be minimal, or may be considerably greater (up to and including potential mass casualty events), based upon the strength of state and federal processes regarding guardianship and involuntary commitment.”
Maddow twisted that language, leaving out the part about the risk potentially being minimal and claiming the Trump administration has determined more mass shootings will take place if the proposed rule is adopted, which is most certainly not the case.
Maddow then brought on former ATF official Marianna Mitchem, who took a job with Everytown for Gun Safety after leaving the agency last May. As you might have guessed, Mitchem didn’t push back at all on Maddow’s false portrayal of the ATF’s proposal.
Instead, Mitchem pushed back on the ATF proposal that would allow for some direct sales to consumers. As Mitchem put it, someone could sit in their own home and “purchase a firearm 100% online.” Though the ATF’s proposed rule would require that buyers prove their identity before a sale can take place, Mitchem claims there’s no way for that to happen.
“It’s very easy to produce fake documents, to have a fake Zoom call where you’re pretending to be someone that you actually are not,” she said, adding that she always found gun shops to be the “first line of defense” in stopping dangerous people and criminals from getting their hands on a gun.
Mitchem went on to say that FFLs will lose that ability completely if online sales are allowed to take place. As Cekada pointed out, though, the ATF is proposing modernizing its procedures, but background checks will still be conducted and identifies will still have to be verified. The agency also notes in the proposed rule that federal law already “permits federal firearms licensees (“FFLs”) to transfer firearms to a person residing in the same state but who does not appear in person.” The proposed rule would simply extend that option to transfers that require a background check too, as opposed to the current system that allows for transfers only for non-background check items.
I’m not concerned that this rule, if adopted, will fuel illegal gun sales. Honestly, my biggest fear is the damage that it might do to small, independent gun stores across the country. According to the ATF, as many as 3,000,000 guns could be purchased this way, which would be 20% to 25% of sales in a normal year. That’s a huge change for the firearms industry, and I think smaller shops will feel the effects far more than big box retailers.
Maddow and Mitchem aren’t concerned about that, of course. They want the MS NOW audience to be freaked out by the thought of some violent felon sitting on their couch and ordering a gun like they’re ordering a pizza, even though that’s not how the process would play out at all.
If Maddow was a real journalist, she’d invite Cekada on her show to explain things instead of relying on a gun control activist, but she’s not and she won’t. Thankfully, Cekada doesn’t need to wait for an invitation that isn’t coming to shed some light on how this rule would work in the real world. And if his post wasn’t enough for you, be sure to check out Bearing Arms’ Cam & Company this week where Cekada and ATF Chief Counsel Robert Leider join me to discuss these proposed rules and more.
Read the full article here
