Transferring Machine Guns Between Qualified Licensees

The FAIR Trade Group, a trade association of firearms importers and exporters, strongly supports the proposed rule to revise regulations on transferring machine guns between qualified licensees. They argue that the rule correctly aligns with statutory language but request specific refinements regarding inventory maintenance, documentation requirements for government-furnished weapons, and the removal of "sales sample" references.

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

The Main Street Foundation's Center for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement (CRAE) supports the proposed rule, arguing that it correctly aligns regulations with statutory authority and reduces unnecessary administrative burdens. They praise the ATF for conducting a retrospective review to simplify compliance for qualified licensees while maintaining the substantive policy choices of Congress.

The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. (FRAC) supports the proposed rule as a positive regulatory action but argues it should be amended to align more closely with the statutory language of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). They contend that the rule should apply the "government authority" exception to all "persons" rather than being arbitrarily restricted to "licensees" (FFLs/SOTs).

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade association for the firearms industry, supports the ATF's proposed rule to clarify regulations regarding the manufacture, import, possession, and transfer of machine guns. While they praise the move toward clearer language, they suggest specific revisions to the text to more accurately reflect statutory allowances and avoid potential confusion regarding registration conditions and export activities.

Tim Bennett, a gunsmith and small firearms manufacturer, opposes the proposed R&D protections because they require a prior government request, which he argues prevents independent innovators from developing prototypes. However, he supports the provision allowing the transfer of unregistered government machine guns for repair or testing as a practical administrative improvement.

Tim Bennett, a gunsmith and small-scale manufacturer, opposes the proposed rule because it creates a "regulatory moat" that favors large defense contractors over small businesses. He argues that the rule's requirement for immediate government demonstration intent ignores the iterative nature of R&D and could lead to the financial destruction of small shops by classifying prototypes as "excess inventory."