Comment on FR Doc # 2026-01141

Re: RIN 1140-AB03, Revising Definition of Unlawful User of or Addicted to Controlled Substance I support ATF’s interim final rule revising the definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” but I urge ATF to go further in protecting the constitutional rights of peaceable citizens. The most important improvement in this rule is that it rejects the idea that one isolated drug-related event is enough to strip a person of the right to keep and bear arms. A single admission, a single test, or a single stale incident should not be treated as proof that someone is a current, regular, unlawful user. That old approach invited overbroad denials, weak enforcement decisions, and arbitrary deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right. ATF is correct to require evidence of regular use over an extended period continuing into the present. That is a better standard than vague suspicion or isolated evidence. The Second Amendment does not disappear because a person once used a controlled substance. Nor should a citizen lose a constitutional right because of conduct that is stale, sporadic, nonviolent, or unrelated to actual dangerousness. That said, the rule remains incomplete. The phrase “regular use over an extended period of time continuing into the present” still leaves too much discretion in the hands of the government. ATF should make clear that the government must have strong, current, individualized evidence before treating someone as prohibited. Ambiguous records should not be enough. The burden should be on the government, not on the citizen, to prove present disqualification. The historical tradition is especially important here. The Founding generation was not a population of abstainers. Alcohol use was common, and many Founders drank regularly. As was recently discussed in the Supreme Court’s consideration of the federal drug-user firearm ban, the early American tradition did not generally disarm people merely because they drank. That history matters. If the government could not disarm regular drinkers at the Founding merely because they drank, it should not be able to disarm modern citizens merely because they use marijuana or another controlled substance, absent violence, or dangerous misuse of firearms. Marijuana use is a fair modern analogue to alcohol use in this context. The relevant constitutional question should be dangerousness while armed, not moral disapproval of a substance. This is especially important for marijuana. Many Americans live in states where marijuana is legal under state law, yet they remain exposed to severe federal firearms disabilities because marijuana remains federally controlled. That conflict should not be used to convert otherwise peaceable citizens into prohibited persons. A person who uses marijuana lawfully under state law, is not intoxicated while possessing or carrying a firearm, and has no violent criminal history should not be stripped of Second Amendment rights. ATF should therefore clarify several points in the final rule: First, isolated, sporadic, stale, or single-incident evidence must not be enough to establish prohibited status. Second, lawful firearm possession by a sober person should not be prohibited based solely on past drug use. Third, any restriction should require current evidence showing that the person’s use creates a real, individualized risk of dangerous firearm misuse. Fourth, marijuana use should not be treated more harshly than the historical tradition treated alcohol use. Fifth, the rule should not rely on vague standards that allow NICS or ATF to deny rights first and force citizens to fight later. I support this rule as a corrective step because it narrows an overbroad interpretation and better aligns the regulation with constitutional limits. But the final rule should be clearer and more protective of the right to keep and bear arms. Peaceable citizens should not lose a fundamental constitutional right based on speculation, stigma, or one isolated incident. The government should have to show present, concrete dangerousness before disarming anyone.