Comment on FR Doc # 2026-01141

I support the ATF’s effort to clarify the definition of “unlawful user” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), as the current statutory language has led to inconsistent enforcement and significant legal uncertainty. The proposed rule’s emphasis on a temporal connection between drug use and firearm possession is a necessary improvement that promotes clearer enforcement standards and reduces arbitrary application. However, the rule should be modified to better align with recent constitutional developments. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court held that firearm regulations must be consistent with historical traditions of regulation. The ATF’s proposal does not sufficiently address whether disarming individuals based solely on drug use meets this standard. Without a clearer connection to dangerousness, the rule risks further legal challenges. Additionally, the rule does not adequately resolve the conflict between federal law and state-level marijuana legalization. Individuals who comply with state law may still be considered prohibited persons under federal law, creating confusion and undermining compliance. The ATF should provide clearer guidance on how “current use” will be determined in these contexts. Scholarly and policy analysis suggests that vague definitions in firearm prohibitions can raise due process concerns and increase the likelihood of arbitrary enforcement. The proposed rule is a step toward clarity, but additional safeguards—such as clearer evidentiary standards—are necessary to ensure fair application. In conclusion, I support the rule with modifications. Specifically, the ATF should (1) clarify the relationship between drug use and dangerousness, (2) address conflicts with state marijuana laws, and (3) strengthen evidentiary standards. These changes would improve both the constitutional soundness and practical effectiveness of the regulation.