Comment on FR Doc # 2026-01141

I support ATF’s interim final rule revising the definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” ATF is correct to remove the prior single-incident inference examples and to clarify that a person should not be treated as an “unlawful user” unless there is evidence of regular use over an extended period of time continuing into the present. The prior approach risked erroneous firearm denials based on isolated, sporadic, or stale conduct, and ATF’s own rule recognizes that this created unnecessary constitutional concerns and did not align with current enforcement practice or federal court interpretations. However, I respectfully request that ATF further revise the rule to account for the Attorney General’s recent order rescheduling state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III. That order recognizes lawful medical use when cannabis is possessed and used in compliance with a state medical cannabis program. ATF should clarify that a person who is a lawful medical cannabis patient under state law, possesses a valid medical cannabis card, and complies with that state’s medical cannabis laws should not automatically be treated as an “unlawful user” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). This change would better align the regulation with the rule’s stated purpose: preventing erroneous firearm denials and focusing on actual unlawful, regular, and ongoing drug use. A lawful medical cannabis patient is more comparable to a person using a prescribed Schedule III controlled substance than to someone unlawfully abusing controlled substances. ATF’s revised definition already states that a person is not an unlawful user when using a lawfully prescribed controlled substance, and the same principle should apply to state-law medical cannabis patients if federal scheduling now recognizes state-licensed medical cannabis as Schedule III. ATF should also consider the pending Supreme Court case United States v. Hemani, which directly concerns the constitutionality of applying 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) to a marijuana user who possessed a firearm for self-defense. The case remains ongoing, and the Court’s decision may significantly affect how this statute can constitutionally be applied. For these reasons, I support the interim final rule but request that ATF amend or supplement it to expressly protect state-law medical cannabis patients from being treated as prohibited persons solely because they lawfully use medical cannabis under their state’s program. The final rule should focus on unlawful, regular, and ongoing controlled-substance abuse, not lawful medical treatment recognized by state law and now partially recognized under federal rescheduling.