Clarifying Delivery to a Common or Contract Carrier When Transporting Firearms

Phillip Hagel, a private citizen and gun owner, supports the proposed rule to clarify that travelers who maintain direct control of their firearms do not "deliver" them to common carriers. He argues that this clarification aligns regulations with the realities of lawful travel and removes unnecessary regulatory burdens for law-abiding travelers.

An individual commenter supports the proposed rule because it clarifies that maintaining direct control of a firearm while traveling on a common or contract carrier does not constitute "delivery" under 18 U.S.C. 922(e). They argue the rule aligns with the ordinary meaning of the law, reduces the risk of inadvertent criminal liability for travelers, and reflects historical case law.

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.