Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08930

Removing Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) (RIN 1140-AA98) My name is Robert Marlowe and as a 2nd Amendment supporter, gun rights enthusiast, and collector, I must say that I finally welcome this new rule that the ATF has proposed. For far too long, the 2nd Amendment has been a 2nd class right in our society. The 2nd Amendment is a civil right and should be cherished much like the rights of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to vote, to name a few. The 2nd Amendment is not a 2nd class right I believe the federal government should protect all of our individual civil rights including the 2nd Amendment and not be in the business of taking them away. I believe this rule is a step in the right direction by the ATF and shows a good faith effort of protecting the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens of the United States. While I generally support the new proposed rule of the ATF "Removing Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces" there are some issues that I still have with the NFA overall. I generally agree with the new position of the ATF that the previous rule created under the Biden Administration was arbitrary and capricious. The requirements for lawful gun owners and FFL's to comply with are unclear causing a de facto ban because people are too afraid of being wrong. Moreover, if an individual is wrong there is a steep personal price to pay for not being able to understand the law and how it is applied to these weapons under the current rule. These penalties include a federal felony, jail time, and potential fines. The worksheet developed under the Biden Administration ATF for the factoring criteria was absurd and I believe didn't comport with the NFA. As for my objection to the NFA overall, I believe that in order for the NFA to survive in courts one must first follow the requirements under US v Miller, Heller v DC, and NYSRPA v Bruen. The problem questions I see with the NFA (more specifically: Short Barreled Rifles and Suppressors) are: 1) Are NFA items defined as "dangerous and unusual" as defined under the Miller decision? One can assume that all firearms are dangerous. The question is are they unusually dangerous? If an SBR functions the same as a standard rifle and the only difference is the size, does that make it unusually dangerous? I would say no. Especially considering that a pistol is even smaller and more portable yet legal. 2) Are these NFA items in "common usage" as defined in the Heller decision? There are approximately 1 million legally registered SBR's and there are an estimated 6 million legally registered supressors. I believe this means they are clearly in common usage. 3) Is there historical text and tradition of banning current NFA items during the founding era under the Bruen decision? I believe the founders would have supported NFA items being unregulated as they were well aware of the variety and sizes of firearms in the founding era yet had no real regulations on the size of firearms from what I can find. The NFA legislation was also originally proposed as a tax. Under the "Big Beautiful Bill" the NFA tax was removed for all but machine guns and destructive devices. Therfore, there is a question if the NFA is even legal under current Supreme Court precedent and the creation of the NFA as a taxing act. One can also ask if the government is actually taxing a right like they tried with voting. Another concern of mine is that these proposed rules will eventually become very murky, confusing, and arbitrary depending on who the President of the United States is and what their political affiliation is. It will all depend on who they appoint to ATF and how they feel about the 2nd Amendment rather than what the Constitution actually says and means. What is to stop a new administration from reinstituting the flawed Biden era rule? I believe nothing. So will we have years and years of unending costly litigation until the next president changes the rule again? It just seems like there will be no consistency in our laws if this process is allowed to continue. In the end, I generally support the new proposed ATF rule to fix the flawed Biden era rule while I still believe we should retain the right to challenge the rest of the NFA. Thank you, Robert Marlowe