Interstate Transport and Temporary Export of National Firearms Act Firearms

The Attorneys General of 21 states and the District of Columbia oppose the proposed rules because they believe the changes would weaken the regulatory framework for NFA firearms, impair law enforcement's ability to track dangerous weapons, and jeopardize public safety. They argue the proposals are arbitrary and capricious, lack a reasoned connection to public safety, and fail to consider the cumulative impact of the deregulatory package.

The commenter supports the proposed act, arguing that the current laws unfairly criminalize law-abiding citizens for transporting firearms across state lines. They contend that the existing bureaucracy is unnecessary and has no proven impact on public safety.

An individual is expressing strong support for the proposed rule to eliminate the requirement for advance ATF approval when transporting NFA-regulated firearms for short-term purposes. The commenter argues that the current requirement is an unconstitutional prior restraint that lacks historical basis and burdens law-abiding citizens without improving public safety.

A firearm owner supports the proposed rule because it would simplify the process for transporting NFA items like suppressors and SBRs across state lines for short visits. The commenter argues that the current requirement to submit requests to the ATF is a hassle that prevents many owners from bringing their legal firearms to see family or participate in target practice.

Garioun Martin supports the proposed rule, stating that it simplifies the process for traveling with legally owned firearms and protects his rights against states with restrictive laws. He specifically highlights the "Pass-Through" interstate transportation portion as a much-needed provision for spontaneous travel.

An individual commenter supports the proposal to eliminate advance notice and approval requirements for the short-term interstate transportation of lawfully registered NFA firearms. They argue that owners should not need federal permission to travel with legally possessed property and urge the agency to further minimize reporting requirements.

The commenter supports the proposed rule change because they believe requiring approval for interstate travel with short-barreled rifles and shotguns is an unnecessary burden. They argue that owners should be responsible for following state laws without having to provide private travel details to the government.

A law-abiding firearm owner supports the proposed rule to eliminate the ATF Form 5320.20 requirement for short-term interstate travel with NFA items. The commenter argues that the current process is a redundant administrative burden that hinders travel and training without providing any tangible public safety benefits.