"The proposed rule allows unlicensed individuals to mail handguns, rifles, or shotguns to themselves or another person in another state for 'lawful activities.' No FFL required. No background check on the recipient. No log entry."

That phrase "or another person" is carrying a lot of freight. Every transfer I've run through an FFL — whether it was a private sale, an online purchase, or an estate transfer — had a 4473 at the end of it. That paper trail exists for a reason, and this rule sidesteps it completely.

"131 (3.2%) involved the U.S. mail — under the existing, more restrictive system"

So we already have mail-based gun trafficking under rules that are supposed to prevent it. Loosening those rules and then pointing to a low percentage isn't the reassurance they think it is — it's a baseline that's about to get tested.

The comment period is open right now. If you think this is a good idea, go say so. If you think it's going to make life harder for law-abiding owners when the inevitable misuse gets plastered across the news cycle, go say that instead. Either way, that's the actual lever available right now — not arguing about it after the rule is final.

For those of us who do private transfers, ship guns to gunsmiths, or move firearms between states for hunts or matches — has your experience with the current FFL-based transfer system been workable, or is there a legitimate inconvenience here that a smarter rule could actually solve?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett