Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08922

RE: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Firearms Transactions and Straw Purchases RIN: 1140-AA78 | Docket ID: ATF-2026-0013 I. Introduction & Statement of Interest As a father, son, and family resident in the great state of California, I must address these items for your consideration. While providing administrative clarity to Federal Firearms Licensees (“FFLs”) is a valid regulatory goal, proposed § 478.105 oversteps the statutory authority delegated by Congress under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”), conflates judicial doctrine with statutory boundaries, and creates serious procedural and constitutional vulnerabilities under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Second Amendment. II. Substantive Legal Objections 1. Unauthorized Executive Expansion Under Loper Bright Proposed § 478.105(b) attempts to codify a broad administrative definition of "straw purchasing" rooted in judicial interpretations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A). However, when Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”) in 2022, it explicitly codified the criminal offense of straw purchasing in 18 U.S.C. § 932, tying liability specifically to transactions involving prohibited persons or the furtherance of serious crimes. Under the canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, Congress’s deliberate statutory definition in § 932 limits the regulatory scope of straw purchasing offenses. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S.Ct. 2244 (2024), courts no longer defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. ATF lacks the statutory authority to expand criminal exposure or redefine materiality beyond the statutory parameters explicitly enacted by Congress. 2. Arbitrary and Capricious Spousal Cohabitation Requirement (§ 478.105(c)(3)) Proposed § 478.105(c)(3) excludes spousal purchases from straw purchasing definitions only if both spouses live at the same address. This cohabitation requirement is legally unsupported and arbitrary under the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). In community property states like California (see Cal. Fam. Code § 760), funds and property acquired during marriage are presumptively joint, regardless of physical residence. Tying federal criminal safe harbors to shared physical address creates an irrational standard that penalizes law-abiding spouses who maintain separate residences due to military deployment, work commitments, or temporary personal arrangements. 3. Due Process and Vagueness Deficits Regarding Consideration (§ 478.105(c)(1)) Paragraph (c)(1) exempts "bona fide gifts," but disqualifies transactions where the purchaser accepts "money, services, or any other consideration of value." Under the void-for-vagueness doctrine (FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012)), due process requires clear boundaries for conduct subject to criminal enforcement. The catch-all phrase "any other consideration of value" creates severe ambiguity in familial contexts. Common social interactions—such as a relative providing dinner or assisting with chores after receiving a gift—could be misconstrued as impermissible consideration, exposing non-prohibited citizens to unintended criminal exposure without fair notice. 4. Second Amendment Constitutional Friction Under Bruen Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), firearm regulations burdening conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment must align with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The right to keep and bear arms inherently protects the lawful acquisition and private transfer of firearms between law-abiding citizens. To the extent § 478.105 creates novel administrative hurdles or legal ambiguity for non-violent, non-prohibited transfers, ATF has failed to demonstrate a Founding-era (1791) or Reconstruction-era (1868) historical analogue justifying federal regulation of peaceful third-party acquisitions. III. Recommended Revisions To address these legal deficiencies, ATF should modify the final text of 27 C.F.R. § 478.105 as follows: Remove the Cohabitation Clause in § 478.105(c)(3): Amend to exempt spousal acquisitions provided neither spouse is a prohibited person, regardless of physical address. Define "Consideration" Safe Harbors in § 478.105(c)(1): Clarify that routine familial support, shared household funds, or de minimis social gestures do not constitute "consideration of value." Align Regulation with Statutory Text: Ensure administrative enforcement strictly adheres to the criminal boundaries established by Congress under 18 U.S.C. § 932. IV. Conclusion ATF must ensure its regulations do not convert customary, legal intra-family transfers into federal offenses under the guise of administrative guidance. The Bureau should adopt the proposed revisions prior to publishing a Final Rule. Respectfully, Roger Grubb