Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08916

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing in support of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ proposed rulemaking, RIN 1140-AA73, regarding the clarification of interstate transportation protections under 18 U.S.C. § 926A. Congress enacted the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act to provide law-abiding citizens with a clear and reliable framework for the lawful interstate transportation of firearms. In doing so, Congress expressly reaffirmed that it was “not the purpose” of federal firearms law to impose undue or unnecessary restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens engaged in lawful activities. The proposed rule is consistent with that intent by recognizing the practical realities of interstate travel and providing clear guidance regarding what constitutes protected transportation. Modern interstate travel rarely consists of uninterrupted point-to-point transportation. Planned stops for food, fuel, lodging, and vehicle maintenance are routine. Likewise, unforeseen events such as flight delays, severe weather, medical emergencies, or transportation disruptions are an unavoidable part of travel. These ordinary and incidental interruptions should not deprive an otherwise law-abiding citizen of the protections Congress intended to provide under 18 U.S.C. § 926A. As someone who regularly travels across state lines for work and professional training, I understand firsthand the uncertainty created by the varying firearm laws of individual states. As a Tactical Emergency Medical Services (TEMS) paramedic, I routinely work alongside law enforcement officers in support of public safety operations; however, as a civilian medical professional, I am not afforded the same statutory protections that may apply to sworn law enforcement officers. I also serve as a firearms instructor, where the lawful, safe, and responsible handling and transportation of firearms is a fundamental part of my instruction. These experiences have reinforced the importance of clear, consistent regulations that responsible citizens can readily understand and follow. My work has frequently required travel on short notice, changing itineraries, commercial air travel, rental vehicles, and overnight lodging. In those circumstances, delays caused by weather, airline operations, or mission requirements are routine rather than exceptional. Those unavoidable interruptions should not place otherwise law-abiding citizens at risk of criminal liability when they have acted in good faith to comply with federal law. Without clear federal guidance, a traveler may begin a lawful trip in one jurisdiction and, because of circumstances entirely outside of their control, unexpectedly become subject to a different set of state laws. The proposed rule appropriately recognizes that incidental interruptions are part of modern interstate travel and clarifies that such events do not, by themselves, negate the protections afforded by § 926A. This clarification is consistent with both the statutory language and the underlying purpose of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. I would also encourage the Department to include representative, non-exclusive examples of routine and foreseeable travel interruptions that remain protected under § 926A. Practical examples—such as overnight lodging, delayed or canceled flights, vehicle breakdowns, medical emergencies, and severe weather—would improve voluntary compliance by travelers while promoting consistent interpretation and enforcement across jurisdictions. Providing clear regulatory guidance regarding protected transportation, secure firearm storage, and incidental travel activities will reduce unnecessary legal uncertainty, promote consistent enforcement, and better protect law-abiding citizens traveling for lawful purposes. Equally important, these clarifications provide law enforcement officers with a more uniform framework for evaluating interstate transportation, reducing ambiguity while promoting fair, predictable, and consistent application of federal law across jurisdictions. For these reasons, I respectfully support the adoption of the proposed rule and appreciate the Department’s efforts to clarify the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 926A in a manner that faithfully implements congressional intent while promoting both public safety and consistent enforcement. The views expressed in this comment are my own and are offered solely in my capacity as a private citizen. Respectfully, Vincent