Comment on FR Doc # 2026-01141

Re: ATF Interim Final Rule – Definition of “Unlawful User of or Addicted to a Controlled Substance” (RIN 1140-AB03) I am submitting this comment in support of ATF’s proposed revision to the definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.” I write from the perspective of someone who works with and supports law-enforcement professionals, and I believe this rule change will improve both constitutional clarity and operational consistency for agencies tasked with enforcing federal firearms laws. For many years, the prior regulatory definition created confusion for law enforcement, NICS examiners, and lawful gun owners. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Helani confirms that this older approach was overly broad and constitutionally vulnerable. The Court held that §922(g)(3) requires evidence of regular, ongoing, and contemporaneous unlawful drug use before an individual may be prohibited from possessing firearms. ATF’s proposed rule properly aligns the regulatory definition with this constitutional standard. This issue is especially important in Hawaiʻi, where medical cannabis registry information has been used in ways that disproportionately affect lawful gun owners. Hawaiʻi is one of the few states where medical marijuana registration records are routinely cross-checked against firearm permit applications. As a result, individuals who participate in the state’s legal medical cannabis program—often under physician supervision and in full compliance with state law—have been denied firearm permits or instructed to surrender firearms solely because their names appear in the registry. These denials occur even when the individual’s cannabis use is infrequent, non-impairing, and has no connection to firearm possession or public safety. From a law-enforcement standpoint, the prior federal definition placed agencies in a difficult position. Officers were expected to enforce a prohibition that swept in individuals who did not meet the statutory meaning of “unlawful user,” while prosecutors and federal courts increasingly rejected such cases. This inconsistency undermined public trust, created operational inefficiencies, and diverted resources away from individuals who genuinely pose a risk due to habitual drug abuse. ATF’s revised definition corrects these issues by requiring evidence of regular, extended, and recent unlawful use. This approach provides clearer guidance to law-enforcement agencies, reduces arbitrary or erroneous NICS denials, and ensures that enforcement efforts are focused on individuals whose conduct actually meets the statutory criteria. At the same time, the new definition preserves the government’s ability to act in cases of genuine habitual drug abuse that present legitimate public-safety concerns. For these reasons, I support the proposed revision and encourage ATF to adopt the updated definition in its final rule. This change respects constitutional boundaries, improves regulatory clarity, supports law-enforcement effectiveness, and ensures fair treatment for responsible firearm owners—including those in Hawaiʻi who participate in state legal medical cannabis programs. Respectfully submitted.