Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09157

I support the proposed revision to 27 CFR 478.96 because it would give licensed dealers and lawful purchasers an additional, voluntary method of completing firearm transactions. As a small home-based Federal firearms licensee, I could potentially lose some transfer-fee business if other dealers use this procedure to ship firearms directly to customers. Nevertheless, preserving a local transfer-fee market is not a sufficient reason to deny dealers and purchasers greater freedom and convenience. I am concerned, however, that the proposed rule does not adequately address implementation in states that serve as full points of contact for NICS. I am a Virginia FFL. Virginia dealers do not generally contact the FBI’s NICS system directly. We submit firearm background checks through the Virginia State Police and must comply with Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:2, the Virginia Firearms Transaction Record requirements, and VSP’s VCheck procedures. Virginia law requires the purchaser’s written consent on a form provided by VSP, presentation of qualifying identification, submission of the required information to VSP, and VSP authorization before the dealer may ordinarily complete the transfer. The proposed federal rule explains remote completion of Form 4473, video examination of identification, third-party identity proofing, NICS processing, and CLEO notification. It does not clearly explain how these procedures interact with the separate forms, approvals, identification requirements, and information systems imposed by a full point-of-contact state. As written, the proposal could create substantial uncertainty for Virginia FFLs. For example, it is unclear whether remote presentation of identification would satisfy Virginia’s requirement that the purchaser “present” qualifying identification, whether the Virginia Firearms Transaction Record may be completed and signed remotely, and whether VSP would accept and process such a transaction through VCheck. It is also unclear whether VSP would need to establish a new procedure before a Virginia dealer could lawfully ship a firearm directly to a Virginia resident. This problem is not unique to Virginia. Dealers in other full or partial point-of-contact states may face similar conflicts or procedural gaps. Consequently, the practical availability of this federal reform could vary dramatically from state to state even where state law does not expressly prohibit a remote transaction. ATF should finalize the rule but expressly clarify that, in a point-of-contact state, the dealer must submit the background check through the state-designated intermediary rather than directly to the FBI. ATF should also coordinate with those states and publish implementation guidance identifying which state procedures satisfy the federal rule. At a minimum, the final rule should clearly warn dealers that federal authorization of a non-over-the-counter transaction does not establish that the transaction complies with state law or state point-of-contact procedures. The rule should provide more freedom to lawful dealers and purchasers without placing FFLs in the position of guessing whether their state’s forms and systems can accommodate it. I support the proposal, but ATF should resolve these point-of-contact-state issues before the rule takes effect.