Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09159

I support ATF’s proposal to define “willfully” in 27 CFR 478.73 as intentionally engaging in prohibited conduct with actual knowledge that the conduct is unlawful. As a small federal firearms licensee, I understand that compliance with the Gun Control Act and its implementing regulations is a fundamental responsibility. At the same time, the firearms laws, regulations, forms, and recordkeeping requirements are extensive and sometimes complicated. Even a conscientious FFL can make an inadvertent clerical or paperwork error. An accidental error is not the same thing as intentionally violating the law. Under the previous administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, that distinction was dangerously blurred. As ATF acknowledges in this proposal, the practical standard was lowered from intentional or purposeful misconduct to something approaching negligence. An FFL could be accused of a willful violation—and face the loss of the business—based on an unintentional error or the repetition of an error, even when there was no intent to violate the law. Revocation is an extraordinarily serious sanction. For a small FFL, it can mean the destruction of a business, the loss of substantial investment, and lasting damage to the licensee’s reputation. Such a penalty should be reserved for actual willful misconduct, not inadvertent mistakes. The proposed definition properly distinguishes between an honest error and intentional wrongdoing. It still allows ATF to act against licensees who knowingly violate the law, deliberately avoid learning their legal obligations, knowingly allow violations to recur, conceal employee misconduct, or fail to take appropriate corrective action. Nothing in this proposal prevents ATF from addressing genuine threats to public safety or deliberate violations. I particularly support the proposal’s recognition that repeated violations are evidence to be considered, but are not automatically willful. Repetition may indicate intentional disregard, but it may also result from a misunderstood instruction, a complicated form, inadequate training, or the same inadvertent clerical mistake occurring more than once. Requiring consideration of the totality of the circumstances is both reasonable and necessary. FFLs need to understand what conduct can result in revocation. ATF inspectors also need a clear and consistent standard that does not change with each administration. Codifying “willfully” will provide that clarity and help prevent future enforcement policies from effectively rewriting the statutory mental-state requirement. I urge ATF to finalize the proposed definition. License revocation should be based on evidence that a licensee actually knew the conduct was unlawful and intentionally engaged in it—not merely on the fact that an error occurred.