Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08928

I appreciate that ATF is proposing to reduce certain unnecessary burdens on qualified manufacturers, importers, and dealers. In particular, I support efforts to simplify duplicative paperwork, clarify procedures for discontinuing NFA business, and remove regulatory language that is not found in the statute. ATF is correct to recognize that regulations should track the text enacted by Congress rather than add extra-statutory requirements. However, I am concerned that the proposed rule may still interpret 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(2)(A) too narrowly. Section 922(o)(2)(A) states that the federal machine-gun prohibition does not apply to “a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.” That statutory language is broader than a rule limited only to dealer demonstrations, government procurement, repair, testing, or traditional government-contract activity. The phrase “under the authority of” should be given its ordinary meaning. Congress did not say “only for official government use,” “only for law-enforcement use,” “only for procurement,” or “only for demonstration to a government agency.” Nor did Congress say that State authority must be limited to an agency’s own internal possession. The statute expressly includes possession “under the authority of” a State or political subdivision. For that reason, I urge ATF not to use this rulemaking to codify a cramped interpretation of § 922(o)(2)(A). While the proposed rule may be deregulatory in some respects for FFL/SOT holders, it should not foreclose lawful State or federal authorization mechanisms that are permitted by the statute’s text. Several Second Amendment organizations, including Gun Owners of America, have raised the important point that § 922(o)(2)(A) contains independent language concerning transfers “to or by” a State and possession “by or under the authority of” a State. ATF should not erase that distinction through regulation. I therefore request that ATF revise the proposed rule in the following ways: First, ATF should make clear that this rule addresses only certain procedures for qualified licensees and does not purport to define the outer limits of § 922(o)(2)(A). Second, ATF should avoid regulatory language suggesting that “under the authority of” a government entity is limited only to procurement, dealer demonstrations, government contracts, repair, testing, or direct government-agency possession. Third, ATF should state expressly that nothing in the rule precludes a State, department, agency, or political subdivision from authorizing possession or transfer under § 922(o)(2)(A), where such authorization is otherwise lawful. Fourth, ATF should remove any remaining language that requires the agency to evaluate subjective government “need,” “suitability,” or “purpose” beyond what the statute requires. If Congress intended those extra limitations, it could have included them in § 922(o). It did not. In short, I support reducing paperwork burdens on qualified licensees, but I do not support a rule that uses burden reduction as a vehicle to lock in a narrow interpretation of the machine-gun exception in § 922(o)(2)(A). ATF should finalize only those portions of the rule that conform to the statutory text and should clarify that the rule does not restrict broader lawful authorization by the United States, a State, or their departments, agencies, or political subdivisions. Respectfully submitted.