Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08932

To Whom it May Concern: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on RIN 1140-AA64 and I want to start by affirming my support for ATF's mission to protect our communities while safeguarding lawful commerce and unholding the US Constitution. I want to applaud the effort of your public service and commitment to our rulemaking process. As an advocate of 2A and a supporter of AFT I am, however, writing in opposition to this particular proposed rulemaking because it introduces severe operational conflicts, creates excessive compliance costs for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), creates Constitutional and civil rights violation, creates operational conflicts with states and tribal authorities, exceeds the authority provided to ATF given by Congress, impose over $204.8mil adverse cost on US economy, and creates perjury trap and due process violation. The full text of the comment is attached as PDF. Summary of Actions: —------------ 1. Conflict with State Identity Documents and State Laws 1a. How does ATF plan to reconcile the conflict between federal form instructions and state ID and US state laws governing it. 1b. FFLs are not medical professionals, can ATF provide detailed explanation on what FFLs have to do when placed in an untenable enforcement role of determining a purchaser's biological sex when the customers are in-store? 1c. Economic and regulatory review asserts that the rule imposes "no costs or benefits" and requires no changes to compliance standards. How did the agency come to this conclusion for the FFLs —------------ 2. Arbitrary and Capricious Application of Perjury Penalties and Due Process Consideration (sorry there are quite a few points, this is an important point) 2a. If a purchaser of firearm did not openly declare themselves to be trans at the time of the purchase, but later come out as transgender, what is agency's interpretation of perjury penalty? 2b. Have the the agency please evaluate the options of "Men", "Women" or "Does not prefer to disclose" as a reasonable, less burdensome alternatives. Doing so would both lower cost and maintain less regulatory burden for the FFLs. 2c. AFT must consider clear safe-habor provision that aligns federal form compliance with existing, lawful state-issued identification and documentations. 2d. AFT must consider clear safe-habor provision that aligns federal form compliance with existing, lawful tribal identification and documentations. 2e. Have ATF communicated this proposed rulemaking, and perjury considerations with states authorities? Tribal authorities? —------------ 3. Ultra vires Legal Question 3a. Under what statutory authority explicitly granted by Congress provides the ATF this authority? How is it not an ultra virus action? Violation of equal protection clause? —------------ 4. Constitution and Statutory Question 4a. What plan is in place in case the Executive Order is overturned? Safe-habor for prior purchaser? 4b. Have the Office of Regulatory Affair conducted a formal constitutional and legal statutory review of the executive order? —------------ 5. Economics Impact Assessment Needed —------------ 6a. How does the ATF justify (7, 8) implementing an arbitrary and capricious rule that a vast number of public comments against the proposed rule identify as promoting unlawful sex-stereotyping and discriminatory profiling, and a smaller number of public comments for the proposed rule (e.g. ATF-2026-0010-0725, ATF-2026-0010-0037) is also openly disparaging transgendered Americans? —------------ 7. Reasonable Implementation Time 7a. Pursuant to Alaska Professional Hunters Association v. FAA, 177 F.3d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1999), Agency should provide an additional year or two for transgender Americans to adapt to the new proposed rules (especially in consideration to the strict implementation as detailed in Section 2) or explanation otherwise? Sincerely,