Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08918

I respectfully submit this comment in support of ATF’s proposed effort to clarify when a state firearms-related permit may qualify as an alternative to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) check under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(3). I support the general purpose of the proposed rule. Law-abiding permit holders and Federal Firearms Licensees (“FFLs”) benefit from clear, consistent, and administrable rules. When a state has already conducted a sufficient background check before issuing a firearms-related permit, there should be a clear path for that permit to serve as a Brady Act alternative, provided the statutory requirements are met. I am a Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm License holder. Florida licenses are generally valid for seven years. Because the Brady Act alternative permit exception focuses on permits issued within the previous five years, the proposed rule’s treatment of permits that last longer than five years is especially important to people like me. I appreciate that the proposed rule recognizes that a permit nominally issued for more than five years may still be treated as issued within the previous five years if the state requires an authorized government official to verify or reverify the relevant eligibility information within the previous five years, the official complies with that requirement, and the permit holder can present documentation establishing the verification or reverification date. This is a sensible approach. It recognizes that the real concern is not the printed duration of the permit, but whether the permit holder’s eligibility has been checked recently enough to satisfy the Brady Act. I urge ATF to apply that principle in a way that encourages states, including Florida, to make their permits usable as NICS alternatives. In particular, ATF should provide clear guidance explaining what kind of state reverification process and documentation would be sufficient for a permit like Florida’s seven-year license to qualify during the full period of its validity. If Florida were to implement a five-year reverification process, or provide documentation showing that a license holder has been rechecked within the prior five years, FFLs should be able to rely on that documentation without uncertainty. I am also concerned that the proposed rule may not do enough to make compliance practical for FFLs. Even if a permit technically qualifies, many dealers may still decline to accept it if the rule is difficult or risky to apply or if the documentation requirements are unclear. ATF should make the process as straightforward as possible by identifying acceptable forms of proof, such as an issuance date, renewal date, reverification date, state-issued notation, or electronic verification from the issuing authority. For Florida specifically, ATF should clarify what changes would be needed for Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm Licenses to qualify as NICS alternatives. The notice indicates that Florida permits currently do not qualify for reasons including exceptions from NICS checks for certain categories of applicants and the absence of NICS checks before renewal licenses. If that is ATF’s position, then ATF should clearly identify the exact statutory or administrative changes Florida would need to make so that ordinary Florida license holders who have undergone appropriate background checks can use their licenses as Brady Act alternatives. ATF should also encourage states with multiple permit procedures to distinguish qualifying permits from non-qualifying permits in a clear and simple way. The proposal’s discussion of marked or labeled permits, such as permits marked “NICS Exempt,” is helpful. ATF should expressly allow states to use similar markings, endorsements, electronic confirmations, or supplemental documentation so that FFLs can easily determine whether a particular permit qualifies. Finally, ATF should make clear that FFLs may rely in good faith on facially valid state-issued documentation showing that a permit qualifies, unless the FFL has reason to know the documentation is invalid or outdated. Without that assurance, many FFLs may default to running NICS checks even when a permit should qualify, defeating much of the practical benefit of the statutory exception. In short, I support ATF’s effort to clarify the Brady Act permit exception, but I encourage ATF to ensure that the final rule is practical for ordinary permit holders and FFLs. For states like Florida that issue concealed weapon or firearm licenses for more than five years, ATF should provide a clear path for those permits to qualify when the state performs an appropriate background check or reverification within the five-year Brady Act period. Thank you for considering my comment. Respectfully submitted.