Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08928
Chris OglesbyOpposeIndividual
Summary: A disabled veteran argues that the proposed regulations on transferring machine guns impose unnecessary government barriers and administrative hurdles on a constitutional right. The commenter asserts that the Second Amendment should be treated as a fundamental liberty and that regulations should be narrowly tailored rather than creating complex licensing requirements.
The exercise of a constitutional right should not depend on excessive government permission, discretionary approval, or burdensome licensing requirements.
Americans do not generally need a government license before speaking publicly, practicing religion, publishing opinions, or voting in an election. While certain time, place, and manner regulations may exist around constitutional rights, the government is still expected to treat those rights as fundamental liberties rather than privileges granted at administrative discretion.
The Second Amendment should be treated with the same constitutional respect. Law-abiding citizens should not face unnecessary barriers, vague standards, excessive delays, or subjective approval systems simply to exercise a right specifically protected by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right” subject to an entirely different body of rules than the rest of the Bill of Rights. Regulatory systems should therefore remain narrowly tailored, objective, and focused on genuine public safety concerns rather than creating unnecessary obstacles for lawful citizens.
As a disabled veteran, I am especially concerned about systems that make lawful firearm ownership more expensive, more complicated, or legally uncertain for ordinary Americans attempting to safely exercise a constitutional right.