In the Crosshairs: ‘Nothing Radical About Abolishing ATF’

What Happened

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) has repeatedly called for a dismantling of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). He introduced legislation that would dissolve the agency and return firearms oversight to the states.

Backed by Rep. Lauren Boebert and other House Republicans, the 'Abolish the ATF Act' argues that the federal agency has repeatedly overstepped its constitutional authority. The bill claims the ATF has targeting law-abiding gun owners under the guise of regulation.

Burlison took to X on Monday, doubling down that there was ‘nothing radical about abolishing the ATF.’

The push for the agency’s dismantling follows mounting Republican frustration over recent ATF rules. These include attempts to restrict pistol braces and redefine what constitutes a firearm.

Burlison and his allies are framing this as a states' rights issue. They hope and to spark a change that allows gun laws to be shaped much closer to home, rather than being dictated by unelected Washington bureaucrats.

Why It Matters

This is hardly the first time policymakers have had an issue with the agency, and certainly not the first call for it to be abolished. Burlison has been calling for the agency's dismantling since last fall. He and Boebert introduced the legislation back in January of this year.

The ATF has long been controversial among gun owners as well. Critics accused the agency of inconsistent rule-making, harassment, and unconstitutional enforcement tactics.

High-profile stings like Operation Fast and Furious and recent attempts to regulate parts kits and homemade firearms have only fueled the fire. Burlison’s bill taps into these frustrations. It proposes a reimagining of how Second Amendment rights could be upheld: by leaving it to the states.

An emphasis on increased autonomy for individual states would allow pro-gun states like Missouri or Texas to roll back restrictions and shield gun owners from federal overreach. But on the flip side, it could also open the door for blue states to enact sweeping bans without federal pushback.

How It Affects Readers

For gun owners, this bill can be a double-edged sword. For residents of red states, the repeal of federal oversight would likely mean fewer restrictions, more constitutional carry protections, and the abolition of an agency many have loathed for decades. Hunters, collectors, and regular firearm owners who may have felt targeted by the ATF may finally get some relief.

But this is not to say there are no risks involved. Without any federal standard, the patchwork of state laws could grow wider.

No federal oversight would likely lead to gun laws becoming even more splintered. It could effectively make it harder for owners and dealers to navigate shifting rules across state lines.

Gun manufacturers and dealers could face more complex compliance headaches. And enforcement of existing laws such as background checks for illegal trafficking might suffer without federal coordination.

Regardless of whether the bill becomes law or not, Burlison’s efforts mark a shift in how the Second Amendment is viewed: not just as a right, but as a challenge to the ATF’s authority.

The real question now isn’t whether gun laws should exist, but who should write and enforce them. Burlison says it shouldn’t be the ATF.