Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09159

I appreciate ATF’s proposal to restore a meaningful definition of “willfully” under the Gun Control Act. The prior “zero tolerance” approach effectively treated ordinary mistakes as willful violations, placing the livelihoods of law-abiding firearms dealers at risk and undermining Congress’s intent. As a law-abiding gun owner, I depend on local firearms dealers to exercise my constitutional rights. When unnecessary revocations force honest dealers out of business, law-abiding citizens lose access, competition declines, prices rise, and the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right becomes more difficult. I agree with Gun Owners of America that the proposed rule properly recognizes that “willfully” should require actual knowledge that conduct is unlawful and an intentional decision to engage in that unlawful conduct. That standard is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and better reflects the protections Congress intended when it adopted the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. I respectfully urge ATF to strengthen the final rule in three important ways. First, ATF should make clear that it must establish willfulness before initiating a license revocation proceeding. Revocation itself is extraordinarily costly, even when the dealer ultimately prevails. The process should not become the punishment. Requiring a genuine finding of willfulness before beginning revocation proceedings would help ensure that the abuses associated with the previous “zero tolerance” policy cannot return. Second, ATF should reject any form of strict or vicarious liability that holds a federal firearms licensee responsible for every employee mistake. Congress adopted a willfulness requirement specifically to prevent licenses from being revoked over inadvertent errors. If an employee makes a mistake, the standard should focus on whether the licensee knowingly authorized, directed, or participated in unlawful conduct, not whether ATF later believes the dealer’s corrective actions were “appropriate.” Finally, ATF should reconsider its economic analysis. The proposal significantly understates the financial burden imposed on dealers forced to defend against revocation proceedings. Legal costs can reach tens of thousands of dollars, and some businesses have lost their livelihoods despite acting in good faith. These real-world costs should be accurately reflected in the final rule. I support ATF’s effort to adopt a consistent and meaningful definition of “willfully.” With these additional safeguards, the final rule will better protect law-abiding firearms dealers, respect congressional intent, and help ensure that enforcement is directed at intentional wrongdoing rather than honest mistakes.