Allowing Makers to Adopt Certain Markings for National Firearms Act Firearms

The Foster Legal Group, LLC, a law firm representing firearms manufacturers, supports the proposed rule allowing makers to adopt original markings for NFA firearms. They argue that the supplemental marking requirement serves no investigative purpose and recommend that the ATF also include a grandfathering provision for existing firearms that lack the maker's mark.

Lockheed Martin Corporation supports the proposed rule to allow manufacturers greater flexibility in adopting markings for National Firearms Act firearms. They request further clarification and expansion of the rule to include destructive devices manufactured for Department of War programs to reduce duplicative administrative requirements.

Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, GIFFORDS Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and Brady are submitting a joint comment opposing the proposed rule. They argue that the changes would weaken the National Firearms Act, create public safety gaps regarding joint spousal registrations and machinegun transfers, and remove important traceability markings for converted firearms.

The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) supports the proposed rule as a positive regulatory action that reduces overhead costs and streamlines the firearms ownership process. However, they argue that the rule should be amended to ensure that licensed manufacturers are treated the same as non-licensee makers when adopting existing markings on firearms.

The commenter, an FFL dealer and manufacturer, supports the removal of mandatory markings for NFA firearms but expresses concern about how dealers and law enforcement will identify such firearms without documentation. They propose that the ATF instead provide a secure registry query system for authorized users to verify NFA status using a firearm's serial number and manufacturer information.

The commenter supports the rule change, arguing that the current engraving requirements for modified firearms are an unnecessary burden on law-abiding owners. They contend that simple modifications like changing barrel length should not trigger new manufacturing requirements or the need to engrave personal information.