Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08928

Writing mostly in support of, but partially opposing RIN 1140-AA75. I fully support the majority of this proposal, as it makes sense and clears up quite a bit of ambiguity. However, insofar as it purports to address the new manufacture of post-86 "dealer's samples", those should be left untouched. There are many reasons why a properly licensed manufacturer might have legitimate need to build a new machinegun that has NO practical value to a government entity, for example, as a test piece or experiment (sure, a WWII Sten is pretty useless to a modern SWAT team... but it is still an inexpensive and simple way to have a full automatic SMG to test a new muzzle device that could be used on more modern designs, or to test armor against, etc.). So long as the subsequent TRANSFER of those arms are restricted to the same standards any other post-86 machinegun is held to, there is no public safety implication. The Hughes Amendment (regardless of what one may think about it's legitimacy, Constitutionality, or even suitability) was NOT intended to shut down research and development, and often times in R&D one doesn't need the most modern, but rather a cheap test article that can be quickly whipped together by the machinists. The wording of this proposal could be interpreted as prohibiting such action, even though everyone knows the real intent was to shut down the "Larry Vickers Loophole" and not completely stifle innovation in the military arms industry.