Kash Patel Named ATF Acting Director: What Does It Mean for Gun Owners

As of February 24, 2025, Kash Patel has officially taken on the role of acting director at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), according to a fresh update on the agency’s website. Patel, who just got sworn in as the FBI director, is now juggling leadership of both agencies under the U.S. Department of Justice—a pretty unusual setup.

The BATFE, with its roughly 5,500 employees, handles everything from enforcing federal laws on firearms and explosives to issuing out licensing for firearms dealers and of course, the regulatory duties associated with the NFA, machineguns, SBRs, and AOWs. Although for many it has been a lifelong reality of firearms ownership, the Agency has only been around since the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Explosives Control Act of 1970, focusing on regulating gun sales, issuing dealer licenses, and helping law enforcement track crime guns with tools like the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN). Patel’s new gig, confirmed by Justice Department folks and now showing up on ATF’s leadership page, has people wondering what’s coming next for what is probably the most derided government agency by firearms owners.

More ATF News @ TFB:

• Silencer Saturday #369: ATF Silencer Industry Data
• An Agency Seeking Permanence: ATF Director Announces Resignation
• Pink Slip For ATF General Counsel Pamela Hicks

Kash Patel Named ATF Acting Director: What It Could Mean for Gun Owners

So what does this change in leadership mean for the ATF and the greater “gun community? This could, of course, mean some real changes in how the ATF approaches rules—like those for background checks, suppressors, or stabilizing braces. The agency’s main goal of teaming up with local cops to cut down on the illegal trafficking of firearms and explosives stays the same, but with Patel also running the FBI, folks are curious about how the two agencies will juggle resources and work together on overlapping stuff like firearms cases—and there has been a ton of speculation on what that could mean.

Legally, Patel’s acting director role checks out under federal laws that allow temporary leadership when there’s no permanent boss in place - we covered that with the recent resignation of former Director Dettelbach. The outgoing ATF Director had been pushing for steady leadership to keep the agency strong in Congress and the executive branch, but whether President Donald Trump plans to name someone permanent or keep Patel in this dual role long-term is still up in the air.

From a bureaucrat’s perspective, this dual role raises some head-scratchers. Some think it might make sense to shift the ATF’s firearms and explosives duties to the FBI, which already handles major crime investigations, while moving alcohol and tobacco regulation to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), given its regulatory experience with controlled substances. But here’s the catch: the FBI isn’t a regulatory or revenue-generating agency—it’s built for investigations, not overseeing licenses or collecting taxes on alcohol and tobacco. So, even if this restructuring sounds logical on paper, it’s still an odd fit for the FBI’s mission scope.

And what if the idea of abolishing the ATF—something some folks have floated—gains traction? It’s pretty unlikely, but if Congress doesn’t repeal the underlying laws (like the Gun Control Act or Explosives Control Act), ditching the ATF could create big headaches instead of making things easier. For instance, the country would then have to find out how to handle critical tasks like approving import permits for firearms and explosives if those rules stay on the books. That’s a logistical mess on any scale, especially since, oddly enough, the ATF doesn’t even control all import/export of firearms—other agencies, like the State Department, play a role there too.

Some suggest a better fix might be transforming the ATF into a strictly regulatory agency, focusing on licenses, inspections, and rule-making while rolling its special agents (the ones investigating crimes) into the FBI. That could streamline things, but having the FBI take on the additional tasks of issuing FFLs, SOTs, or running Industry Operations Investigators (IOIs) inside their wheelhouse, and it could potentially pull focus from their core investigative work on active criminals.

This setup might shake things up a bit within the Justice Department, where both the ATF and FBI operate. There’s no legal snag with Patel’s double duty so far, but it could catch the eye of Congress or groups like the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which keeps an eye on how agencies are doing. Other government outfits, like the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau in the Treasury Department, might feel some ripple effects if ATF policies shift, especially considering their shared history before the 2003 shuffle that moved ATF to Justice.

As of writing, all of us here at TFB are waiting to see how the ATF director role will play out for the ATF, gun owners, and how different agencies work together. There is an incredible amount of moving parts here, none of which I think can be so easily removed without some widespread consequences. The ATF’s current job tasks (most importantly approving all of my Form 4s) still march on for now, but the future is still a bit of a mystery until we hear more plans or see some action from Congress. We of course would like to hear what you think!

All photos sourced from the BATFE