Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08918

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Docket No. ATF-2026-0008; RIN 1140-AA85 As a person interested in the regulation of firearms and the consistent application of federal law, I am writing to express my significant concerns regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ proposed rule to amend 27 CFR 478.102. While I understand the agency's desire to provide clarity, I believe this proposal fails to uphold the primary intent of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and creates unnecessary ambiguity that could undermine public safety. Specifically, the proposal to define information that is readily accessible by excluding what the agency terms extraordinary effort, expense, or means is problematic. The Brady Act established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) precisely because consistent, centralized access to criminal history is essential to prevent prohibited persons from acquiring firearms. By creating a regulatory carve-out that allows officials to bypass information that requires further research, the ATF is essentially inviting a degradation of the background check process. If a state’s permitting system cannot efficiently access or verify critical disqualifying information, that system should not be deemed a sufficient alternative to a federal NICS check. Lowering the bar for what constitutes a qualifying state permit could result in prohibited individuals obtaining firearms through loopholes created by inconsistent local administrative practices. Furthermore, the proposal to allow states to issue permits that qualify as NICS alternatives even when those permits are occasionally granted to prohibited persons due to administrative error sets a dangerous precedent. The agency argues that the law of the state, rather than its execution, is what matters, yet this ignores the practical reality that if a state’s procedures are consistently failing to identify prohibited persons, those procedures are not meeting the statutory standard. The Brady Act requires that a permit be issued only after verification of eligibility. If the verification process is demonstrably flawed, the permit should not be accepted as a substitute for a rigorous NICS check. Finally, the allowance for states to distinguish between qualifying and non-qualifying permits via labeling creates a fragmented system that places an undue burden on federal firearms licensees (FFLs). Relying on FFLs to accurately navigate various state-specific labels and supplemental forms increases the likelihood of human error and inconsistent enforcement. The federal government’s responsibility is to maintain a high and uniform standard for background checks. This proposed rule moves in the opposite direction, favoring administrative convenience over the robustness of the background check system. I strongly recommend that the agency withdraw or significantly revise this proposal to ensure that any alternative to a NICS check is held to the highest standard of verification, rather than permitting the current system of varied and potentially insufficient local practices to persist.