Comment on FR Doc # 2026-01141

Docket No. 2026-01141 I submit this comment in support of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Interim Final Rule revising the regulatory definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” as applied to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). I believe this rule is a necessary and overdue step toward aligning federal firearms enforcement with constitutional standards, modern medical practice, and recent federal court decisions. However, I respectfully urge ATF to further clarify and explicitly recognize that individuals who are lawful medical cannabis patients under state law—possessing a valid medical cannabis card issued by a state authority—should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted solely on the basis of such medical use. --- Medical Cannabis Use Should Not Constitute “Unlawful Use” for Firearms Purposes In states that have established regulated medical cannabis programs, patients are authorized by a licensed medical professional and a state authority to use cannabis to treat recognized medical conditions. These individuals are not engaged in arbitrary or reckless drug use; they are following a structured, state-regulated medical framework. Treating state-authorized medical cannabis patients as “unlawful users” for purposes of firearm possession creates several constitutional and practical problems: 1. It penalizes lawful conduct Medical cannabis patients are complying with state law and medical guidance. Automatically stripping a constitutional right based on compliance with a state medical program is inconsistent with principles of due process and equal protection. 2. It lacks historical analogue under the Second Amendment As courts applying New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen have recognized, there is no historical tradition of permanently disarming individuals based on medical treatment or non-intoxicating status outside of active impairment. 3. It creates arbitrary and unequal outcomes Patients using FDA-approved controlled substances (such as opioids, benzodiazepines, or stimulants) under prescription are not categorically disarmed, even though those substances may pose equal or greater impairment risks. Singling out medical cannabis patients results in unequal treatment without a rational safety justification. --- Support for the Revised “Regular and Ongoing Use” Standard I support the Interim Final Rule’s rejection of single or past instances of drug use as sufficient to establish prohibited status. The requirement that unlawful use be A) regular, B) over an extended period, and C) continuing into the present is a meaningful improvement that better reflects statutory text and judicial interpretation. That said, without explicit clarification, medical cannabis patients remain vulnerable to inconsistent enforcement due to marijuana’s continued federal scheduling status. This ambiguity undermines the rule’s stated goal of aligning enforcement with constitutional and judicial realities. --- Requested Clarification I respectfully request that ATF clarify in the final rule, guidance, or commentary that: > Individuals who possess a valid medical cannabis card issued by a state authority and who use cannabis in compliance with state medical law are not “unlawful users” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), absent evidence of current impairment or dangerous misuse. Such clarification would: Improve regulatory clarity for law-abiding citizens and FFLs Reduce arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement Better align federal firearms regulation with constitutional standards Reflect modern medical and legal realities across the majority of U.S. states --- Conclusion The Interim Final Rule is a positive step toward narrowing an overly broad and constitutionally suspect prohibition. Explicitly protecting state-authorized medical cannabis patients from automatic loss of Second Amendment rights would further strengthen the rule’s legal durability, fairness, and public legitimacy. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for considering these concerns during the rulemaking process.