Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08925
Anonymous AnonymousSupportIndividual
Summary: The commenter supports the proposed definition of business premises as it aligns with common sense and plain language. They argue that allowing multiple adjacent buildings to be treated as a single entity simplifies logistics for manufacturers and dealers who need to separate different production or storage functions.
Writing in support of RIN 1140-AA69. Commonsense interpretation of current statute and plain language. Businesses frequently have multiple buildings located adjacently while still being the same building, and this simplifies the process. For example, a manufacturer might not wish to locate the finishing plant (which may invlove caustic chemicals, high heat, fumes, etc.) in the same building as their sales showroom or the machine shop milling them, but that shouldn't require them to have multiple FFLs and have to log firearms in and out as if they were actually being transferred to another entity altogether when they are literally just moving next door to the next step in the production process. Likewise for a dealer who wishes to maintain a small sales and showroom, but keeps the bulk inventory in a heavily reinforced (and quite unsightly to customers) building right out back. When people talk about, for example, the Ford plant in Dearborn Michigan, they refer to the entire plant complex as ONE ENTITY, even though the various buildings within the plant even have their own mailing address.