Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08917
John RichardsOpposeIndividual
Summary: An individual opposes the proposed rule on constitutional grounds, arguing that the government cannot create requirements for the lawful use or carriage of property without existing federal laws. They assert that the rule is unconstitutional and that agencies lack the authority to create such regulations.
There are no federal codified laws that says a person that lawfully owned property requires permission from anyone to use it in a lawful manner or to be able to carry it with or on their person. None. This rule should not exist entirely and is Constitutionally void. Rules are not laws.And agencies cannot be allowed to make laws where one doesn't exist.