Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09156

I generally support this proposed rule because it appears to correct an overbroad interpretation that has affected veterans, Social Security beneficiaries, and others who were never found dangerous or broadly incapable of safely handling firearms. A person should not lose Second Amendment rights merely because the VA, SSA, or another agency determines that they need help managing benefits or finances. ATF correctly recognizes that a limited finding about financial management is not the same thing as an adjudication that someone is unable to responsibly possess firearms. I also support ATF’s effort to require stronger procedural protections before a person is treated as prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). A firearms disability should not result from an informal administrative designation without notice, a meaningful hearing, an unbiased decisionmaker, the ability to present evidence, and representation where necessary. These protections are especially important because the right affected is a constitutional right. However, I urge ATF to be careful in how it handles findings of insanity, incompetency, and related court findings. A finding of insanity is not simply a “mental health designation” in the same way as a clinical diagnosis. It is a legal determination made by a court. The DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 do not define “insanity” as a medical diagnosis; it is a legal concept. ATF should therefore avoid treating court findings of insanity as though they are interchangeable with clinical mental-health categories. I strongly support ATF’s clarification that voluntary admission to a mental institution does not count as a commitment for purposes of this firearms prohibition. That clarification is important because many people fear that seeking voluntary mental-health treatment could cause them to lose their firearm rights. ATF should make this point as clear as possible in the final rule so people are not discouraged from seeking help when they need it. I am also concerned that this rule must not be applied in a discriminatory manner. Future misuse of courts, guardianship proceedings, or other legal mechanisms could place disfavored groups at risk of being improperly swept into firearms disabilities. In particular, transgender people or other politically targeted groups could be vulnerable if discriminatory actors attempt to characterize identity, medical care, or social nonconformity as evidence of incapacity or dangerousness. The final rule should make clear that only individualized findings, supported by due process and relevant evidence of actual incapacity or involuntary commitment, may trigger the prohibition. For these reasons, I support the rule’s correction of overbroad VA and SSA-related firearm disabilities and its exclusion of voluntary admissions, but I request that ATF revise the final rule to more clearly distinguish legal findings from clinical diagnoses and to guard against discriminatory misuse of court or administrative processes.