Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09163

Re: ATF Proposed Rule – Importing Dual-Use Frames, Receivers, or Barrels (Federal Register Document 2026-09163, RIN 1140-AA96), Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 27 CFR Part 478 [Docket No. ATF-2026-0070; ATF No. 2025R-09P] RIN 1140-AA96 Submitted via Regulations.gov on June 22, 2026 I am a law-abiding U.S. citizen, Second Amendment advocate, and firearms owner/enthusiast. I strongly support the proposed clarification in this NPRM regarding the importation of dual-use frames, receivers, and barrels. This change represents a sensible, burden-reducing step that aligns with the statutory text of 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3) by focusing the “sporting purpose” evaluation at the time of importation based on the existence of a viable sporting configuration. Once lawfully imported, allowing these parts to be used in compliant sporting, non-sporting, or NFA configurations (subject to 18 U.S.C. § 922(r) and other applicable laws) promotes regulatory clarity, reduces unnecessary barriers for importers and manufacturers, and benefits law-abiding citizens without compromising public safety. This reform is consistent with recent ATF efforts to modernize and streamline outdated interpretations of the Gun Control Act. I urge ATF to finalize the rule as proposed. However, the underlying statutory framework itself — particularly the blanket exclusion of surplus military firearms and the vague, discretionary “sporting purposes” test in 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3) — raises serious constitutional concerns under the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that are in common use for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting, recreation, and militia service (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)). New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) established that when the plain text of the Second Amendment covers regulated conduct, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. There is no historical tradition of conditioning the importation (or effective availability) of arms on whether they are deemed “particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes” by executive discretion. The founding generation and 19th-century Americans routinely acquired and possessed military-pattern arms for personal and collective defense. Restricting imports of common military surplus arms while domestically manufactured equivalents remain largely unrestricted creates an anomalous and constitutionally dubious barrier. The explicit exclusion of “surplus military firearms” in § 925(d)(3) is especially problematic. Many such arms (e.g., Mausers, Enfields, and others) have long been sporterized and used for hunting, as acknowledged in the legislative history of the 1968 Act itself. These firearms are in common use today, functionally equivalent to protected domestic arms, and suitable for multiple lawful purposes. A blanket import prohibition on them lacks a sufficient historical analogue under Bruen and effectively burdens the core right by limiting affordable, reliable options for law-abiding citizens. Congress itself recognized in the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 and related history that the GCA was “not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” (Pub. L. 99-308). The current import regime, with its narrow “sporting” filter and military surplus ban, often does precisely that by artificially restricting supply and increasing costs. While this NPRM is narrowly focused and I support its adoption, ATF and the Administration should recognize these broader constitutional infirmities. In future rulemakings or through legislative recommendations, the agency should work to align importation policy more closely with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment as articulated in Heller and Bruen. Repeal or significant reform of the non-statutorily-defined “sporting purposes” test and the surplus military exclusion would better protect the rights of the American people. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I respectfully request that this comment be placed in the administrative record.