Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08918
Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter argues against removing exceptions to the Brady Act background check requirement, citing instances where state-issued licenses (CPLs/LTPs) were not sufficient to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms. They claim that relying on these state licenses instead of the NICS system poses a significant public safety risk.
If this is talking about NICS alternates, please do away with the exceptions. We have people in our state who have CPLs (Concealed Pistol License) and/or LTPs (License to Purchase) who still get NICS denials. Obviously, there is some kind of disconnect between what the state is doing and what the FBI is doing. We are legally able to accept CPLs or LTPs but have chosen not to for the above reason. THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. IF we had accepted a CPL or LTP, a firearm would've been in the hands of a prohibited person. This has happened MANY TIMES.