Comment on FR Doc # 2026-01141

I support revising Form 4473 rules on unlawful drug users to align with constitutional limits established by the Fifth Circuit in Daniels and Connelly, now affirmed by the Supreme Court's direction in Hemani. The courts have made clear: drug use frequency alone—even daily use—does not justify disarmament. What matters constitutionally is whether someone is currently intoxicated at the time of purchase or possession. Restricting rights based on past usage patterns, divorced from present incapacity, violates the Second Amendment. This mirrors historical public intoxication law: actual impairment mattered, not mere drinking history. The same principle applies here. Constitutional restrictions must be grounded in present danger—current intoxication or observable incapacity—not speculative risk or status-based prohibitions. The Form 4473 revision should reflect this: Redefine the unlawful user standard. Remove questions targeting historical drug use patterns. Focus instead on present intoxication or court-adjudicated dangerousness at the time of the transaction. Eliminate prosecutorial traps. Honest disclosure of past drug use should not become felony exposure when the user is not presently impaired. The form should not ensnare citizens whose conduct falls outside the constitutional threshold. Constitutional fidelity and public safety align when enforcement targets demonstrable present danger—actual intoxication or judicial determination of dangerousness—not usage history divorced from current incapacity. Precision and restraint are not weaknesses; they're requirements.