Comment on FR Doc # 2026-01141

As an attorney admitted to multiple federal courts and drawing on my experience as a former prosecutor in a densely populated urban area, I support the interest of the Department of Justice ("Department") in amending its regulations to update the definition of an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." Within the Department’s mandate, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") is responsible for ensuring that firearm access guidelines are both effective for public safety and constitutionally sound. The ATF is correct to move away from "single-use inference" examples, such as a single failed drug test or isolated admission, which are no longer consistent with court applications of the law. As the ATF notes, those prior standards created unnecessary constitutional questions and led to denials for otherwise law-abiding citizens. While the Second Amendment dictates a clear inference in favor of firearm access, that right is not unlimited; those who pose a valid threat to the peace and safety of our communities can and should have limits placed on them. However, as a matter of policy, the current shift toward a definition requiring chronic, "regular use over an extended period of time continuing into the present," reflects a more evolved and legally sound understanding of the law. However, despite this progress, the rule requires refinement because, in its current state, it is impossible to apply without subjective interpretation. The Department must enact a clear bright line standard; otherwise, there is significant risk of unequal application across jurisdictions, and consequently, unnecessary infringement on the constitutional rights of citizens—an outcome the ATF explicitly seeks to avoid. By implementing a measurable sliding scale or a clear list of aggravating and mitigating factors to the revised rule, the ATF ensures the Department's guidelines are clearly enforceable and consistently applied. Accordingly, I include the following objective metrics as examples of what is needed to balance the interest of community safety against the rights provided to citizens under the Second Amendment: AGGRAVATING FACTORS: A bright line threshold to illustrate an "extended period of time continuing into the present," such as criminal sentencing, conviction, or arrest involving open-air public use of controlled substances (including marijuana) on three or more occasions within the past two years, and/or a criminal possession conviction with a weight or paraphernalia component within the past year, to establish the required "temporal nexus" and "sufficient regularity and recency" for current use. MITIGATING FACTORS: A current, valid prescription for the controlled substance in question issued by a state-licensed medical professional (MD, DO, NP, or PA) should serve as a clear factor against an "unlawful user" determination.