Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09163

I support this proposed rule because it is a major benefit for importers, collectors, manufacturers, and consumers. Allowing dual-use frames, receivers, and barrels to be imported when there is an identified sporting configuration is a practical and modern interpretation of the law. ATF correctly recognizes that many firearm components today are modular and may be usable in both sporting and non-sporting configurations. This change would help lawful commerce by giving importers more options and more sources for frames, receivers, and barrels. It could also benefit domestic manufacturers that use imported components to complete firearms, potentially lowering production costs and increasing availability. ATF itself notes that this rule may benefit Type 08 importers, Type 07 manufacturers, and sellers of firearm parts by giving them more flexibility and more supply options. I also support the rule because it may help address shortages in the market and bring prices down for consumers. When lawful import options are expanded, collectors and builders have access to a broader supply of parts and components. Increased supply and competition can reduce scarcity, lower prices, and make lawful collecting, restoration, repair, and firearm building more accessible. The rule also makes sense because it treats barrels, frames, and receivers consistently under the statute. If a component has a lawful sporting configuration at the time of importation, prior use on a non-sporting, military surplus, or NFA firearm should not automatically make that component non-importable. ATF’s proposed approach focuses on lawful use and statutory compliance rather than unnecessarily restricting dual-use components. For these reasons, I support finalizing the proposed rule.