Firearms Electronic Recordkeeping

The commenter supports the proposed electronic recordkeeping as an option for FFLs but opposes making it a mandated requirement due to concerns over data security and privacy. They note that while electronic records would improve business efficiency and space management, they prefer the security of paper records unless specific privacy and storage duration concerns are addressed.

The commenter, a former FFL holder, opposes the proposed rule because they believe electronic recordkeeping will lead to misuse of information and privacy violations. They argue that paper ledgers were sufficient and cite Supreme Court case law regarding tracking to support their position.

An individual commenter opposes the proposed electronic recordkeeping rule, arguing that digitizing firearm transaction records could facilitate the creation of a de facto national firearms registry and increase privacy risks. They suggest that if record-keeping is burdensome for FFLs, the agency should instead consider changing the required retention period.

The commenter opposes the proposed firearms electronic recordkeeping by arguing that it constitutes over-regulation and creates risks for privacy and security. They advocate for zero record retention for law-abiding citizens and businesses.

The commenter, who identifies as a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) and a law enforcement officer, expresses a desire for a balanced approach to firearms recordkeeping that respects privacy and existing laws. They propose specific retention periods (e.g., 5 years for 4473s) and require a warrant or probable cause for record access, rather than supporting the proposed action in its entirety.