Comment on FR Doc # 2026-01141

I generally support this effort to clarify the definition of an “unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.” Clear definitions matter for both public safety and the fair application of the law. Someone who may have used a controlled substance once in the past, or who is currently taking medication prescribed by a licensed physician, should not automatically be treated the same as someone who is currently struggling with a serious substance addiction that could contribute to risky or unlawful behavior. A more precise definition would help ensure that any restrictions are focused on individuals whose ongoing substance abuse may meaningfully increase the risk of dangerous conduct, while avoiding overly broad interpretations that could affect otherwise responsible citizens. Greater clarity in this rule would also make it easier for both regulators and the public to understand how the law should be applied and enforced. The Supreme Court has recognized that regulating dangerous individuals is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation in United States v. Rahimi. The Court’s upcoming decision in United States v. Hemani will likely extend that principle to cases involving addicts.