Selecting Biological Sex on ATF Forms

Operation Blazing Sword, Inc. (specifically its Pink Pistols division) opposes the ATF's directive requiring firearm purchasers to identify by biological sex on Form 4473. They argue that the requirement creates a "Catch-22" for transgender and non-binary individuals, potentially leading to legal complications and disenfranchising a minority group from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

The commenter opposes the proposed action, arguing that it serves no regulatory purpose and creates unnecessary red tape. They claim the rule is a discriminatory measure that does not improve the ATF's ability to identify individuals.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it is unconstitutional, violates privacy, and creates an impossible situation for transgender individuals seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. They also contend that the rule would complicate the ATF's enforcement mission by creating contradictory information.

The commenter, a former firearms retail employee and gun owner, opposes the proposed rule requiring "biological sex at birth" on ATF Form 4473. They argue that the requirement is dangerously vague, creates legal paradoxes for transgender or intersex individuals with amended IDs, and risks criminalizing law-abiding citizens through administrative confusion.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule to select biological sex on ATF forms, arguing that it is unconstitutional and based on identity politics. They contend that the right to bear arms belongs to all "PEOPLE" regardless of gender.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that requiring "sex assigned at birth" on ATF forms is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. They express concern that the rule would cause 4473 forms to be denied for transgender, nonbinary, and some cisgender individuals whose government IDs do not match the requested information.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule requiring applicants to designate "immutable biological classification" on ATF forms, arguing it creates unnecessary friction, risks disclosing transgender status, and lacks clear notice for a rule with criminal consequences. They contend that the current system of using legal identification is sufficient and that the new requirement creates ambiguity and potential legal risks for applicants.

The commenter opposes the proposed action, arguing that the definition of "sex" used in the proposal is outdated. They express concern that the proposal could lead to discrimination against transgender and intersex individuals by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs).