Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09157
East Valley TacticalOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter opposes the proposed rule because they believe it increases the risk of straw purchases and public safety threats. They argue that requiring transfers through gun shops provides a necessary layer of scrutiny that direct delivery lacks.
I am opposed to this proposed rule due to a high potential risk to public safety. In this industry, there is a high risk of straw purchases, where the buyer of the firearm intends to transfer it to a prohibited possessor. When the firearm is transferred to a gun shop, it adds a layer of defense where the potential buyer can be questioned and assessed to be a legitimate purchases prior to the transfer taking place. With the proposed ruling, only identify will be verified (along with a background check). It will be very simple for a straw purchaser to purchase a firearm and hand it over to the prohibited buyer upon delivery.
One could make the argument that the non-over-the-counter ruling already exists which allows direct delivery, however this is typically utilized over for silencers which are non-dangerous "firearms" and rarely used in crime. GCA firearms are a totally different category of firearm which will be used often in crime and trafficked to prohibited persons and across the border to Mexico.
For the sake of public safety, I strongly urge you to remove this proposal.