Clarifying Delivery to a Common or Contract Carrier When Transporting Firearms

Michael R. Grigsby expresses strong support for the proposed rule clarifying that passengers who maintain physical possession of firearms during travel have not "delivered" them to a carrier. He argues the rule eliminates regulatory ambiguity, protects law-abiding citizens from unintended prosecution, and modernizes the Gun Control Act without impairing safety.

The commenter supports the proposed rule because it aligns with the plain meaning of "delivery" and prevents criminal liability for individuals who maintain direct possession of firearms while traveling. They also advocate for clear language to prevent private carriers from imposing unnecessary restrictions and request that the rule distinguish between retained possession and actual transfer of custody.

J. Nowick, a former state legislator, argues that the proposed regulation should strictly enforce the "passenger exception" of 18 USC 922(e), requiring passengers to relinquish firearms to the carrier's custody rather than carrying them in proximity to themselves. He expresses opposition to allowing proximity on common carriers while supporting certain aspects of the rule, such as the use of locked storage.

An individual firearm owner supports the proposed rule because it addresses current ambiguities in carrier transport regulations. They argue that clearer guidelines will reduce legal uncertainty and confusion for law-abiding citizens and carriers alike.

The commenter supports the proposed rule because it aligns with the plain meaning of "delivery" and prevents law-abiding citizens from facing criminal liability for simply keeping a firearm in their possession while traveling. They also advocate for clear language that prevents private carriers from imposing unnecessary restrictions or overreaching in their own policies.