Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08922

I support ATF’s effort to distinguish unlawful straw purchases from lawful gifts, family transactions, repaired-firearm pickups, pawn redemptions, inheritances, and other ordinary transactions. Clear rules benefit lawful purchasers and Federal firearms licensees alike. As a Federal firearms licensee, I have encountered circumstances in which the distinction between a straw purchase and a lawful gift is not nearly as obvious in practice as it may appear in an abstract example. One of the most common is a customer who candidly says that he or she is buying a firearm as a gift. A wife may be buying a firearm for her husband, or a husband for his wife. The customer’s honesty should not itself create suspicion that a crime is being committed. The proposed exclusions for bona fide gifts and purchases between spouses are therefore welcome. The preamble provides particularly useful clarification that, when two spouses may lawfully possess firearms and reside at the same address, it does not matter which spouse completes Form 4473 or hands over the money. That practical explanation should be retained and incorporated into ATF’s instructions for Form 4473 and its guidance to licensees. Nevertheless, the final rule should include more concrete examples addressing circumstances that FFLs actually encounter. ATF should expressly clarify that none of the following, standing alone, establishes reasonable cause to believe a straw purchase is occurring: 1. The purchaser states that the firearm will be a gift for a spouse, relative, or friend. 2. The intended recipient accompanies the purchaser, helps select the firearm, discusses its features, or expresses a preference for a particular model. 3. A spouse pays with money from a joint bank account, joint credit card, or other marital funds. 4. One spouse selects or orders the firearm and the other spouse completes the purchase. 5. The gift is given for a birthday, anniversary, holiday, retirement, graduation, or other occasion on which gifts may be exchanged. 6. The intended recipient already owns firearms or is known to the dealer as someone legally eligible to possess firearms. ATF should contrast those lawful examples with situations involving reimbursement, repayment, an exchange of property or services, a purchase made at another person’s direction using that person’s funds, or evidence that the intended recipient is prohibited. Examples should also explain whether an unexpected offer of reimbursement after a completed bona fide gift changes the character of the original transaction. The phrase “reasonable cause to believe” is especially important because the proposed rule prohibits an FFL from transferring a firearm when the FFL has reasonable cause to believe the customer is a straw purchaser. Dealers should not be forced to reject ordinary family transactions merely because they fear that an innocent fact could later be interpreted differently by an inspector or investigator. The final rule should provide that an FFL may reasonably rely on the purchaser’s certification and explanation unless the dealer knows of additional objective facts indicating that the statement is false. A candid statement that a firearm is being purchased as a lawful gift should not, by itself, create reasonable cause to deny the transaction. Finally, ATF should ensure that the regulation, Form 4473 instructions, dealer training materials, inspection guidance, and public-facing FAQs all use the same definitions and examples. A clarification accomplishes little if purchasers, dealers, inspectors, and investigators receive materially different guidance. I support finalizing the proposed rule with these additional clarifications. The law should prevent purchases on behalf of prohibited persons and intentional evasion of background-check requirements without confusing lawful gifts and ordinary transactions among eligible family members with criminal conduct.