Revising Definition of Unlawful User of or Addicted to Controlled Substance

The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it violates the Second Amendment, ignores Supreme Court precedents (specifically *Heller*, *Bruen*, *Rahimi*, and *Hemani*), and defies a recent presidential executive order. They contend that the ATF is attempting to bypass judicial rulings by using administrative definitions to disarm citizens without individualized findings of dangerousness.

The commenter supports revising the definition of an unlawful user of a controlled substance to align with Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit rulings. They argue that firearms restrictions should be based on present intoxication or incapacity rather than historical usage patterns, which they claim violates the Second Amendment.

The commenter supports revising the definition of an unlawful user of controlled substances to align with Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit rulings. They argue that firearm restrictions should be based on present intoxication or observable incapacity rather than historical drug use patterns, which they claim violates the Second Amendment.

An individual supports the revision of the definition of "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." They argue that the current rule unfairly disqualifies law-abiding individuals in state-compliant medical marijuana programs from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

The commenter supports the ATF's interim final rule because it rejects the idea that a single drug-related event is sufficient to disqualify a person from firearm ownership. However, they urge the ATF to go further by requiring clear, individualized evidence of current dangerousness and clarifying that marijuana use should not be treated more harshly than historical alcohol use.

A disabled veteran supports the ATF's interim final rule to revise the definition of "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." The commenter argues that the revision correctly aligns with judicial precedent by ensuring that isolated incidents or lawful medical cannabis use do not result in the automatic loss of Second Amendment rights.

The commenter, an employee at a firearms background check agency, opposes the proposed rule because it removes the ability to use inference (such as possession of large amounts of drugs) to establish habitual drug use. They argue that the rule creates an undue burden on agencies by lacking clear guidance and examples, potentially allowing drug dealers and heavy users to purchase firearms.

A former prosecutor and attorney supports the Department of Justice's move to update the definition of an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" to require chronic use over an extended period. However, the commenter argues that the rule needs more specific "bright line" metrics, such as a sliding scale of aggravating and mitigating factors, to ensure consistent application and avoid subjective interpretation.