Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09154

I strongly support this proposal, but it does not go far enough. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the Militia Act of 1792 reflected the expectation that ordinary citizens would possess their own arms suitable for militia service. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right is fundamental. Most recently, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ruled that modern firearms regulations must be consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. There is no Founding Era tradition of requiring federal registration, transfer taxes, government permission slips, or legal trusts for married couples to possess arms. While the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act remains an open and serious question under the text, history, and tradition test established in Bruen, this proposal is at least a step toward reducing an unnecessary burden on law abiding Americans. The ATF is correct that forcing spouses to create trusts merely to share possession of a lawfully owned firearm provides little public safety benefit. This proposal should be adopted, and Congress should continue examining whether NFA restrictions themselves can be reconciled with the original meaning of the Second Amendment.