Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08932

RE: Docket No. ATF-2026-0010; RIN 1140-AA64 — "Selecting Biological Sex on ATF Forms" I write in strong opposition to this proposed rule and to request that ATF go further than either the current regulation or the proposed amendment: the "sex" field should be removed from Form 4473 and related ATF forms entirely, rather than clarified or redefined. 1. The field serves no articulated regulatory purpose. Nothing in the Gun Control Act, the National Firearms Act, or Title XI conditions eligibility to purchase, possess, or transfer a firearm or explosive on the purchaser's sex. The disqualifying categories under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) — felony convictions, domestic violence restraining orders or convictions, unlawful drug use, adjudicated mental incompetence, immigration status, dishonorable discharge, and so on — are all sex-neutral. ATF's own preamble does not identify any way in which an applicant's sex bears on the background-check determination made through NICS. The agency's stated rationale for this rule is definitional clarity, not law-enforcement necessity; the proposal itself concedes "there are no changes to ATF standards or compliance requirements" and anticipates "no costs or benefits" from the change. If the field carries no bearing on the eligibility determination and produces no compliance effect, that is itself an argument for eliminating it rather than re-litigating its definition. 2. The field's original justification does not hold up. ATF's history section notes that "sex" was added to the Form 4473 in 1998 to implement the Brady Act, alongside other identifying information (name, address, date and place of birth). Those other fields serve an evident function: confirming that the person named in the NICS check is the person standing at the counter. But sex is a poor identity-verification tool compared to the photo ID, date of birth, and physical description already required, and ATF has never claimed otherwise. If the purpose is identity confirmation, it is already accomplished by the rest of the form. 3. Rather than clarifying an ambiguity, this rule manufactures a new compliance risk. The proposal adds a perjury requirement tied to a definitional dispute that has no bearing on firearms eligibility. Where "sex" previously could be read in different ways, transgender and intersex individuals could complete the form according to their understanding of the term without legal jeopardy. This rule forecloses that reading and threatens felony perjury exposure for a subset of law-abiding buyers over a question that, as ATF's own cost-benefit analysis states, has zero regulatory consequence either way. That is a real cost imposed on real people to resolve an interpretive question the agency admits doesn't affect the outcome of any transaction. 4. Recommendation. Rather than adopting the proposed definitional language, ATF should amend §§ 478.21(a), 479.21(a), and 555.21(a), and the underlying Form 4473, to remove the "sex" data field altogether. Doing so would: Eliminate a field that plays no role in determining firearm eligibility; Remove an unnecessary point of perjury exposure over a question immaterial to the transaction; Reduce the data ATF and FFLs collect and retain to what is actually necessary for identity verification and eligibility determination. I urge ATF to withdraw this rule and instead initiate a rulemaking to strike the sex field from its forms.