Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09156

Re: Comment on ATF NPRM, RIN 1140-AB04; Docket No. ATF-2026-0337; ATF No. 2025R-24P I write in support of ATF’s notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the definitions of “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution” under 27 CFR part 478, while also urging ATF to ensure that any final rule protects the constitutional rights and due process interests of law-abiding Americans. Clear definitions matter. These terms determine when a person becomes prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms and ammunition under federal law. Because the consequences are serious and affect a core constitutional right, the regulations should be precise, narrow, and tied to formal legal process. I support this NPRM to the extent it clarifies the law, reduces confusion, and prevents inconsistent or overbroad application by agencies, states, or other reporting authorities. From a gun-rights perspective, the good in this proposal is that updated definitions can help ensure that only individuals who have actually been subject to a qualifying adjudication or commitment are covered. A person should not lose Second Amendment rights merely because they sought counseling, received a diagnosis, took medication, voluntarily entered treatment, or went through a short-term evaluation. Responsible gun owners should not be discouraged from seeking mental-health care out of fear that ordinary treatment will be treated as a firearm disability. A clear rule can help separate actual legal adjudications from informal medical care. The final rule should make unmistakably clear that voluntary treatment, outpatient counseling, temporary observation, emergency holds without a qualifying adjudication, and purely medical diagnoses do not by themselves create a federal firearm prohibition. A firearm disability should require notice, evidence, an opportunity to be heard, and a formal finding by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority acting through a process that satisfies due process. I also support clarification because the public, firearm dealers, courts, and state agencies need predictable rules. Vague terms invite overreporting, underreporting, and unequal treatment across jurisdictions. A law-abiding citizen’s rights should not depend on inconsistent local paperwork or unclear administrative labels. If this NPRM improves uniformity and prevents people from being wrongly reported as prohibited persons, it deserves support. That said, the bad or concerning side of this rulemaking is the risk that revised definitions could expand federal firearm prohibitions beyond what Congress intended. ATF should not use this rulemaking to sweep in people who have never been adjudicated dangerous, never been found incapable of managing their affairs, and never been committed through a formal legal process. The government should not be able to convert vague mental-health terminology into a broad mechanism for disarming citizens who have committed no crime. The final rule should also include, or at least preserve, meaningful pathways for relief and restoration of rights. People recover. Circumstances change. A lifetime firearm disability should not result from an outdated or procedurally weak determination, especially where the person no longer presents a danger and can demonstrate fitness under applicable law. For these reasons, I support ATF’s effort to revise and clarify these definitions, but I urge ATF to adopt the narrowest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Gun Control Act, the Second Amendment, and due process. The final rule should protect public safety while making clear that constitutional rights are not lost through informal treatment, bureaucratic shortcuts, or ambiguous records. Respectfully submitted.