Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09156

I. STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION The undersigned opposes ATF’s proposed revisions expanding the regulatory definitions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). Broadening these statutory terms infringes upon Second Amendment rights and due process protections by administrative decree. II. SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL & CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES 1. Second Amendment Violation Under Bruen: Under NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), firearm restrictions must align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. Expanding § 922(g)(4) prohibitions to cover non-violent mental health treatments or non-judicial administrative determinations lacks historical analogue. 2. Statutory Overreach Post-Loper Bright: Following Loper Bright v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), courts do not defer to ATF interpretations. Congress enacted § 922(g)(4) with specific narrow terms; ATF cannot unilaterally expand the scope of statutory disqualifiers beyond original statutory boundaries. 3. Due Process Violations (Fifth Amendment): Stripping constitutional rights based on non-adversarial or outpatient administrative proceedings without formal judicial findings of dangerousness violates constitutional due process. III. PUBLIC POLICY & HARMS Chilling Healthcare Seeking: Threatening lifelong firearm prohibition deters gun owners and veterans from seeking voluntary mental healthcare. Lack of Individualized Finding: Categorical disqualifications ignore whether an individual poses any actual threat of violence. IV. CONCLUSION ATF must withdraw the proposed rule and preserve explicit judicial due process requirements for § 922(g)(4) disqualifications.