Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08928

Please consider this an addendum to my previously submitted comment (Tracking Number: mp1-l12c-msws) regarding proposed rule 1140-AA75. I am writing to address two specific additions in the proposed regulatory text that my initial submission did not cover. These concerns relate specifically to paragraph (e) and paragraph (g) of the proposed amendments to 27 CFR 479.105. The Illusory R&D Accommodation in Section 479.105(e) In the proposed text for paragraph (e), the ATF includes new language stating that making a weapon includes "developing an invention or prototype for possible future use" and "making a weapon in connection with research and development." On the surface, this appears to be a protection for manufacturers engaged in R&D. However, the exact same sentence completely neuters this protection by mandating that the making of the weapon must be "at the request and on behalf of a government entity." This fundamentally misrepresents how small arms innovation actually works in the real world. Ground level innovation does not happen by committee or through pre-existing government requests. As a small 07/02 SOT utilizing additive manufacturing, my R&D is strictly speculative. If I am designing a new select fire conversion mechanism, no police department or military branch is going to issue a formal request for a product that does not even exist yet. I have to design it, print it, test it, and refine the sear geometry out of my own pocket first. Only after the prototype is functional can I take it to a government entity to gauge their interest. By requiring a government request before the R&D can even legally begin, the ATF is granting an R&D carve out that only benefits major defense contractors who already hold standing development contracts. For independent innovators, this provision provides zero protection. It essentially makes speculative prototyping a violation of the law. To fix this, the rule must protect independent R&D that is conducted with the intent of future government sales, without requiring a prior government mandate just to start cutting metal or printing test fits. The Practicality of Government-Furnished Equipment in Section 479.105(g) Regarding the newly proposed paragraph (g), I want to acknowledge that allowing the transfer of unregistered government machine guns to qualified licensees for repair or testing is a rare example of pragmatic rulemaking. As a working gunsmith, dealing with the red tape of taking in federal or local law enforcement weapons for service has always been an administrative headache fraught with liability. Creating a clear pathway to receive these weapons via a government contract or official letterhead, without requiring formal NFA registration on the licensee's end, is a smart and practical change. It reduces unnecessary overhead for both the gunsmith and the government agency needing the repair work. I would simply point out the stark contrast between paragraph (g) and the rest of the proposed rule. In paragraph (g), the ATF demonstrates that it perfectly understands the practical, day to day realities of gunsmithing and government repair work. I strongly urge the Department to apply that same practical, real world understanding to the R&D and demonstration requirements in paragraphs (d) and (e). Thank you for your time and consideration. Tim Bennett Gunsmith