Comment on FR Doc # 2026-01141

Perhaps when Congress passed 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) it did not have in mind two things: 1. If laws are to be created based on the nation's founding. 2. the amendment of laws when public opinion and scientific research indicate different meanings to what causes irreparable damage that must become unlawful. Marijuana under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) is a Schedule 1 controlled substance although there are 24 states (nearly half of the country) that have legalized marijuana for recreational use. Although the ATF is not responsible for creating case law, one must wonder why is there a disconnect between federal law and state law? And if federal law supersedes state law why is federal law not enforced to stop the spread of this "dangerous" Schedule 1 controlled substance? Recent Supreme Court decisions have expanded Second Amendment interpretations to at the time of the nation's founding. The Founding Fathers did not classify what is a controlled substance, why can it be dangerous, what is addictive and habitual. Consumption of alcohol was lawful, however public intoxication was and still is not. If public intoxication is unlawful, then how was a drunkard still allowed to lawfully exercise their Second Amendment after their intoxication? Here is an unlawful act yet there was no infringement upon Second Amendment rights. I believe under current Supreme Court Second Amendment interpretations, someone who does not excessively use marijuana that would cause immediate severe injury or death to themselves or others, is neither an unlawful user nor addicted to a controlled substance. I believe the CSA is not to enhance 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). United States v. Hemani was argued before the Supreme Court on March 2, 2026, and some justices expressed skepticism on the vagueness definition of an unlawful user and the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) during the nation's founding. Alcohol today is not a controlled substance yet has a high potential of abuse. Unlike Marijuana the “dangerous” Schedule 1 substance, alcohol has reported abuse and deaths attributed to its use. Yet again, during the nation’s founding drunkards were allowed to own and or carry firearms. In addition to President Trump issuing guidance to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule 1 to Schedule III controlled substance, increased research shows how less destructive marijuana is to other controlled substances. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency there are NO deaths related to marijuana overdose. Whereas the Centers for Disease for Control and Prevention reported 2,333 nationwide deaths from Heroin overdoses in August 2025. I believe the definition of an unlawful user must not be based on a single usage that does not cause immediate severe injury or death to themselves or others. An unlawful user definition should have a habitual pattern that can cause immediate life-threatening consequences. And this habit must include developing a psycho-physiological dependence to a substance. These consequences must have such compelling reasons that if the government does not intervene, it would be worse than an injustice to the public welfare. Referring to the hypothetical scenario of the second paragraph, if someone licked (which is a form of consumption) marijuana only once, is it reasonable to conclude that they are an addicted, unlawful user? It would be wrong to infringe upon their constitutional rights because of a vague and unreasonable law. That is precisely what 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is: a vague and unreasonable law that infringes the Second Amendment.