Clarifying Exceptions to the Brady Act Background Check Requirement

The National Rifle Association of America supports the proposed rule to clarify exceptions to the Brady Act background check requirement. They argue that the rule provides necessary clarity for state-issued firearm permits, protects state sovereignty, and prevents the ATF from revoking permit status based on isolated administrative errors.

The commenter, a CEO of a firearms business (FFL and SOT), supports the proposed rule's effort to align regulatory text with the statute regarding state permit exceptions to the Brady Act. However, they request that the ATF clarify that the rule does not automatically change the status of permits on the Brady Permit Chart and establish a formal notice-and-response process for any future permit removals.

Keith Adams, a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder, supports the action to clarify exceptions to the Brady Act. He argues that the NICS check is repetitive given that he has already cleared multiple local, state, and federal background checks.

The commenter supports the investigative bureau's action to clarify the meanings of the Brady Act. They argue that the state of California allows ineligible individuals to possess firearms and work in law enforcement, which they believe violates federal law.

An individual is opposing the proposed exceptions that would allow government officials to skip certain background checks if they are deemed to require "extraordinary effort, expense, or means." The commenter argues that firearm permit standards should remain high and consistent with other federal credentials, regardless of the infrastructure of the issuing state agency.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule because it would broaden the recognition of state permits as exemptions from NICS background checks. They argue that the proposal would allow prohibited persons to bypass background checks by using permits from states that do not adequately verify eligibility.