A perennial front-runner in the race for most despised federal agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has reemerged as a top target during the first 100 days of the second Trump Administration. There have been hirings, firings, two acting directors, several resignations, and more than a couple of questionable anti-gun legal positions.
Unsurprisingly, amid this climate, the Second Amendment community has renewed its calls to abolish the ATF. And now, maybe for the first time, there’s real momentum behind an effort to abolish the agency.
In fact, in January, Reps. Eric Burlison (R-MO) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO) introduced legislation titled the Abolish the ATF Act of 2025 in the House of Representatives. As Burlison correctly put it, “The ATF is emblematic of the deep-state bureaucracy that believes it can infringe on constitutional liberties without consequence.” The bill is backed by several co-sponsors and signals that the push to dismantle the agency is not just theoretical.
Burlison isn’t wrong, but dissolving the ATF isn’t enough — and it won’t solve the problem. Even if we snapped the ATF out of existence today, the massive number of unconstitutional laws and regulations the ATF enforces will continue to be enforced by other, more aggressive, and better funded and staffed agencies such as the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and others including state and local law enforcement and anti-rights prosecutors. This would be the same as cutting the head off the Lernaean Hydra, that many-headed serpent in Greek mythology: If you abolish the ATF, it will immediately be replaced by many others in its place.
To begin with, it’s important to understand why so many people want to eliminate the ATF. Over the decades since it was first created, the ATF has functioned exactly as it was designed and intended to — restricting your rights as much as it can get away with. From arbitrary rule changes by anti-Second Amendment presidents and bureaucrats that put millions at risk of felony imprisonment to raids of homes and businesses, the ATF has acted with near-total impunity for decades and has faced virtually no consequences or structural reforms in response.
It’s tempting to believe that abolishing the ATF would end this abuse. But unless you dismantle the underlying policies that give rise to its enforcement authority, those powers won’t disappear — they’ll just move. And that would almost certainly make the situation worse.
For example, one such contender for taking over the role of the ATF is the FBI. But as history shows, the FBI is arguably more effective than the ATF at violating individual rights — just look at its latest “mistaken” raid that was argued in a case before the Supreme Court in April. And the FBI has an astronomical budget at its disposal — about 10 times the ATF’s, at $11.8 billion to $1.8 billion. Another contender for the role, the DHS, commands a budget of $89.3 billion and has its own lurid past with gun rights.
Eliminating the ATF without first repealing the laws and regulations it enforces would just make gun control more powerful and more entrenched within larger and better-funded agencies throughout the executive branch.
That’s why the goal isn’t, and can’t be, merely to eliminate the ATF. No, the real goal must be to put an end to the underlying gun control laws and regulations themselves so no agency can enforce them against us.
SECOND AMENDMENT ADVOCATES FIGHT TO EXPAND DUE PROCESS FOR VETERANS DEEMED ‘INCOMPETENT’
The stakes here aren’t just bureaucratic or administrative — they’re existential. At the heart of this fight is one simple but critical question: Can people freely exercise their right to keep and bear arms without fear of shifting regulatory sands or politically motivated enforcement? If we don’t fix the actual problem, the answer will always be a resounding “No!”
Abolishing the ATF without repealing the laws and regulations it enforces isn’t solving the problem — it’s simply giving it a new uniform.
Cody J. Wisniewski (@TheWizardofLawz) is the president and CEO of FPC Action Foundation and is a public interest litigator by trade. His work has appeared in the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, National Review, the Federalist, and more. He primarily focuses on Second Amendment issues.