Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08917

I write in support of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ proposed rule clarifying that a person who travels aboard a common or contract carrier while maintaining direct possession and control of a firearm or ammunition has not “delivered” or “caused to be delivered” that firearm or ammunition to the carrier for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 922(e). I support this proposed clarification because it reflects the ordinary meaning of the word “delivery.” A person who keeps a firearm or ammunition on his or her person, or in baggage under his or her immediate control, has not transferred possession or custody to the carrier. Treating that conduct as “delivery” would stretch the statute beyond its plain meaning and risk imposing criminal liability on otherwise law-abiding individuals who have not shipped, checked, transferred, or surrendered anything to a carrier. This clarification is especially important because ordinary citizens should be able to understand what the law requires. A lawful gun owner who boards transportation while retaining direct control of a firearm or ammunition should not be placed in legal jeopardy based on an expansive or technical interpretation of “delivery.” The proposed rule properly draws a common-sense distinction between personally retained possession and situations where a passenger actually gives custody of a firearm or ammunition to a carrier. I also support the proposed clarification that taxis, limousines, rideshares, and municipal or regional mass transit vehicles are not “common or contract carriers” for purposes of this provision where passengers do not have a practical ability to provide written notice or deliver a firearm or ammunition into the custody of the operator. Applying 18 U.S.C. 922(e) to those settings would be confusing, impractical, and inconsistent with how those transportation services operate. That said, I urge ATF to ensure that the final rule is written clearly and not administered in a way that invites overreach. The final rule should make unmistakable that mere presence aboard a vehicle, train, bus, or other mode of transportation while lawfully retaining direct control of a firearm or ammunition does not trigger the federal notice requirement. The rule should also avoid vague language that could allow future enforcement to treat ordinary possession as constructive “delivery” merely because a passenger is using a transportation service. I am also concerned that private carriers or transportation companies may respond to this clarification by adopting policies that effectively negate the practical benefit of the rule. While private companies may generally set their own terms of service, federal regulators should be careful not to encourage or pressure carriers to adopt blanket restrictions that burden lawful firearm owners beyond what federal law requires. The purpose of this rule should not be undermined by informal regulatory pressure, vague guidance, or carrier policies adopted in response to a mistaken belief that federal law requires them. For that reason, I encourage ATF to state clearly in the final rule or accompanying guidance that this rule does not require carriers to demand notice, declarations, special handling, or additional restrictions when a passenger maintains direct control and possession of a firearm or ammunition and does not deliver it to the carrier. Carriers remain free to comply with other applicable federal, state, and local law, but ATF should not create ambiguity that invites companies to impose unnecessary procedures under the guise of federal compliance. I further encourage ATF to make the final rule easy for ordinary citizens to understand. The rule should clearly distinguish between: 1. a person retaining direct control over a firearm or ammunition, which should not be treated as delivery; and 2. a person checking, shipping, surrendering, or otherwise transferring custody of a firearm or ammunition to a carrier, which may implicate the notice requirement. In conclusion, I support the proposed rule because it restores a practical, text-based interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 922(e), reduces the risk of accidental criminal exposure for lawful gun owners, and provides needed clarity. I respectfully request that ATF finalize the rule, while strengthening the final language to guard against overbroad enforcement and to avoid encouraging private carrier policies that unnecessarily burden lawful possession and transportation. Respectfully submitted.