Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09161
Marc AdkinsSupportIndividual
Summary: An individual commenter supports the proposed action, arguing that it would reduce the "disgusting" legal hurdles and administrative burdens placed on lawful NFA firearm owners. They contend that the change would simplify travel for multi-state property owners and allow law enforcement to focus resources on actual problems rather than "rubber stamping" lawful activities.
Removing the requirement for notifying authorities and obtaining permission before transporting an NFA firearm through or into a place in where the firearm is lawful to own would only be beneficial to the people. Overwhelmingly, people who go through the process to register and lawfully own an NFA item are not the problem, and the sheer amount of legal hurdles placed on their backs is frankly disgusting. This would simplify everything for everyone. The law enforcement in the area would no longer have to dedicate resources to rubber stamping lawful activities, the people who already lawfully own NFA items will no longer have to worry if the powers that be would simply decide to ruin their plans, despite the fact that the items are presumably legal in the area in which they intend to be used. Another thing this will simplify is people who own properties across multiple states. There are people who live a short drive down the road from a property they own, but because that property exists across a state line, using or carrying NFA items other than suppressors across the border would be tricky.
The burden has always been on the private citizen to understand and comply with laws, and this simply makes things easier on people who only have lawful intentions. The people who create problems do not go through lawful channels, so removing the requirement of notification for travel and temporary export would only have positive impacts on the lives of the owners of lawful NFA items and the offices involved with rubber stamping the approvals.