Comment on FR Doc # 2026-01141
Jonathan RabazOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter argues that the proposed rule creates an unfair double standard by failing to exempt individuals participating in state-authorized medical programs from being classified as "unlawful users." They contend that the rule is arbitrary and capricious, especially following the federal reclassification of marijuana, and urge the ATF to include an explicit exception for state-legal medical users.
ATTN: RIN 1140-AB03 / Docket No. ATF-2026-0034
RE: Interim Final Rule, 91 FR 2698
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
The proposed revision to 27 CFR 478.11 creates a legal double standard that has not been justified. While it protects patients who "slightly deviate" from a physician's instructions, it ignores individuals who are acting in accordance with state-authorized medical programs. The new definition of "addicted" relies on "impaired control;" however, medical use, by definition, is a controlled and deliberate therapeutic act. Participation in a state-licensed medical program, as prescribed by a medical professional, constitutes a "supervised use" that negates the inference of being a "dangerous" or "unlawful" user.
Furthermore, the ATF’s position is increasingly untenable following the federal reclassification of marijuana to Schedule III. This reclassification formally recognizes that the substance has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment." By failing to incorporate medical patients into protected statuses alongside other prescription users, the ATF is effectively labeling medical compliance as "impaired control." This distinction—treating one class of Schedule III prescription users differently than another based solely on the state-authorized nature of their program—is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Bureau must reconcile this rule with the reality that medical use is supervised care. Without an exception for state-legal medical users, the rule remains a "status-based" ban that fails the constitutional tests set forth in NYSRPA v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, as it lacks a historical tradition of disarming individuals for the supervised use of substances recognized as having medical value.
In conclusion, I urge the Bureau to amend the final rule to include an explicit exception for state-legal medical users. Adopting the rule as written would unfairly penalize law-abiding citizens for following medical advice and would likely lead to immediate judicial challenges.