Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09182

The ATF should withdraw or substantially revise Section 2(d) and its recreational-marijuana warning before adopting the revised Form 4473. The proposed form requires a transferee to attest, under penalty of federal prosecution, that the transferee is not an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance, and then warns that "Federal law does not permit the use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes." Placed under the transferee-eligibility section, this language communicates that recreational marijuana use alone automatically disqualifies a person from acquiring or possessing a firearm. The Supreme Court has now rejected that position. In United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234, 608 U.S. ___ (June 18, 2026), a unanimous Court held that the government's prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)'s unlawful-user provision was inconsistent with the Second Amendment where the government relied solely on the defendant's regular marijuana use, with no allegation that he possessed or used a firearm while intoxicated, misused the firearm, or otherwise presented a danger. The Court also observed that marijuana has been moved to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, 91 Fed. Reg. 22714, and reasoned that the government cannot treat the tens of millions of Americans who use it as categorically dangerous. The proposed form was published before Hemani was decided and does not reflect it. Because use alone can no longer constitutionally support automatic disarmament, Section 2(d) as drafted forces a buyer exercising a protected right into a trilemma. He can disclose his marijuana use and be denied the transfer under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3). He can answer falsely and expose himself to felony prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and § 924(a)(1)(A). Or he can surrender the right altogether. Conditioning the exercise of a constitutional right on a disclosure that triggers automatic denial is coercion. It imposes through the transfer process the very categorical disqualification the Supreme Court just held the Second Amendment forbids. Earlier decisions upholding this question rested on the assumed validity of a categorical § 922(g)(3) bar, and that assumption no longer holds. ATF should reopen and revise the draft to conform to controlling precedent. At minimum, the form must not require an applicant to identify recreational marijuana use as a status that automatically eliminates the applicant's Second Amendment rights. Any question should be narrowly limited to conduct the government may constitutionally regulate after Hemani, such as possession or use of a firearm while actually intoxicated or in connection with demonstrably dangerous conduct. Adopting the form without these revisions would embed a constitutional defect the Supreme Court has already identified and would invite immediate legal challenge.