Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08916

I support the proposed revision to 27 CFR 478.38 because it gives practical effect to the interstate-transportation protection Congress enacted in 18 U.S.C. 926A. I encourage ATF to finalize the rule after making several clarifications described below. The existing rule does not adequately account for how interstate travel actually occurs. A lawful journey may require fuel, food, rest, vehicle repair, medical treatment, an overnight hotel stay, a change of vehicles, or a transfer between a private vehicle and a commercial aircraft. Travelers should not risk arrest merely because an airline cancels a flight, a vehicle breaks down, or ordinary human needs interrupt a trip. The proposed protection for these reasonably necessary activities is sensible and overdue. The express treatment of ammunition, magazines, optics, stocks, grips, braces, mounts, lights, holsters, slings, and other firearm accessories is also important. Protecting transportation of a firearm while allowing a jurisdiction along the route to prohibit the magazine, ammunition, sight, or other equipment traveling with it would defeat the purpose of section 926A. For a small retailer, greater certainty also benefits customers who travel to competitions, training, hunting trips, gun shows, gunsmiths, and other lawful destinations with products businesses like mine sell. I recommend that ATF make four clarifications in the final rule. First, the final rule should state expressly that "any lawful purpose" includes lawful commercial purposes and that the protection applies equally to an FFL, an FFL's employee, and any other nonprohibited person transporting firearms in lawful commerce. The proposed text uses "any person," but much of the preamble speaks in terms of citizens and individual travelers. Nothing in section 926A limits its protection to recreational or personal travel. A small dealer transporting lawful inventory to or from a gun show, another licensee, a gunsmith, or another lawful destination should not face a different standard merely because the trip has a commercial purpose. Second, ATF should clarify that an accessory need not be physically attached to a firearm, placed in the same case, or matched to a particular firearm by make, model, or serial number. Firearms, ammunition, magazines, and optics are routinely placed in separate cases or checked bags because of size, weight, carrier rules, or basic safety practices. The phrase "for the firearms they are transporting" should not be read so narrowly that protection turns on packing configuration. Third, paragraph (b)(6) should make clear that it does not create an independent locking requirement for ordinary accessories that federal law does not treat as firearms or ammunition. If ATF retains the condition that accessories be transported in the manner specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3), or (b)(4), the final rule should state that placing multiple protected items in the same locked case, luggage, trunk, or other compliant container is sufficient. Travelers should not have to place each scope, grip, sling, holster, or cleaning kit in a separate locked container. Such a requirement would impose cost and inconvenience without a corresponding safety benefit. Fourth, the final rule should clarify "reasonably necessary" and "extended break" so that the safe harbor does not depend on hindsight. A traveler should not lose protection solely because a delay lasts longer than expected when the duration results from weather, a carrier cancellation, unavailable replacement transportation, vehicle repair, illness, medical treatment, fatigue, or the unavailability of lawful lodging or secure storage. The relevant question should be whether the traveler is continuing the interstate journey in good faith and keeps the firearm unloaded and secured as the rule requires, not whether a later decision-maker believes the traveler could have resumed the trip sooner. The rule should also make clear that compliance with a required inspection by a common carrier, TSA, or U.S. Customs and Border Protection does not end the safe harbor, as the proposed paragraph (b)(5) provides. These clarifications would advance the rule's stated deregulatory purpose, reduce uncertainty for travelers and small firearms businesses, and help prevent state or local restrictions from nullifying the federal protection Congress created. They would not protect possession that is unlawful under federal law or at the trip's origin or destination, and they would preserve the rule's unloading and secure-storage conditions. For these reasons, I support the proposed rule and request that ATF finalize it with the clarifications above.