Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08915

I. INTRODUCTION I respectfully submit this comment strongly supporting the ATF's proposed rule to allow NFA firearm makers to adopt existing manufacturer markings. This rule correction represents a legally sound alignment of federal firearms regulations with the plain language of the underlying statute. II. STATUTORY PLAIN LANGUAGE SUPPORTS THIS RULE The Statute Uses "Or," Not "And" 26 U.S.C. § 5842(a) requires identification by "the manufacturer, importer, **or maker**"—using the disjunctive "or." The statute does not require markings from all three. When an individual creates an NFA firearm from an existing platform, **the original manufacturer's markings already satisfy § 5842(a)'s identification requirement**. The manufacturer's serial number, name, city, and state provide all information necessary for law enforcement tracing through FFL records. What "Adopting" Existing Markings Means When a maker "adopts" existing manufacturer's markings, the firearm is simply registered in the NFRTR under that person's name as maker. The original manufacturer's physical markings satisfy § 5842(a), and no additional engraving is necessary. Manufacturers Already Have This Authority 27 CFR 479.102(b)(3)(i) already permits licensed manufacturers to adopt "serial number[s] and other identifying markings previously placed on a firearm by another manufacturer." If manufacturers can adopt pre-existing markings under identical statutory language, consistency demands makers receive the same treatment. Regulatory Discretion Cannot Contradict Statute While § 5842 grants discretion to prescribe "such other identification as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe," this discretion does not authorize regulations contradicting the statute's plain language. The prior interpretation requiring makers to add markings in addition to the manufacturer's markings constituted regulatory overreach. The ATF's proposed rule correctly restores alignment with statutory text. III. THIS RULE CORRECTS A LONGSTANDING MISINTERPRETATION The ATF previously accommodated this practice through individual variances, proving the prior regulatory position was acknowledged internally as too restrictive. This proposed rule corrects a mistake and vindicates the rule of law by ensuring regulations faithfully execute statutory authority rather than exceed it. The statute never required redundant markings from makers. IV. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IS NECESSARY The Statute Never Required Additional Maker Markings The engraving requirement was never lawful under the statute. Therefore, firearms were always compliant bearing only manufacturer or importer identification. Citizens did not violate law by relying on the statute's plain language. Retroactivity Protects Law-Abiding Citizens This rule must apply retroactively to all NFA firearms, including: Firearms with Form 1 approval granted before the final rule's effective date, regardless of whether they have been marked; Firearms made by individuals unaware of the incorrect marking requirement; All NFA firearms registered in the NFRTR under a maker's name. No cure period is necessary because there was never a legal obligation to engrave additional markings. These firearms were always in compliance with the statute itself. Citizens who failed to comply with an unlawful regulatory requirement—whether unaware or correctly understanding the statute's plain language—should not face enforcement consequences when the ATF corrects its own misinterpretation. V. PUBLIC SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT Contrary to concerns, this rule enhances clarity: The original manufacturer's markings are the basis for firearms tracing through FFL records; The NFRTR includes maker information regardless of physical markings; Eliminating the incorrect engraving requirement reduces confusion about the actual serial number; Law enforcement traces firearms effectively using existing markings. NFA firearms are a tiny fraction of crime-scene recoveries. Existing markings provide more than sufficient traceability. VI. REGULATORY GUIDANCE The ATF should issue clear guidance stating: The statutory authority permitting makers to adopt existing markings; Conditions under which existing markings comply with 26 U.S.C. § 5842(a); Guidance for firearms in intermediate stages of completion; Clarification that prior variance applicants are no longer held to the engraving requirement. VII. CONCLUSION This proposed rule is legally sound, necessary, and overdue. It restores regulatory fidelity to statute, eliminates unnecessary burdens on lawful makers, and protects law-abiding citizens from retroactive penalization based on regulatory misinterpretation. I urge the ATF to finalize this rule, provide for retroactive application, and issue clear implementing guidance.