Revising Definition of Unlawful User of or Addicted to Controlled Substance

Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund opposes the interim final rule because it weakens the federal drug prohibitor by removing clear regulatory inferences and adding confusing new criteria for determining drug addiction. They argue the rule complicates the NICS background check process, increases the risk of "default proceed" sales to prohibited persons, and poses a significant threat to public safety.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade association for the firearms industry, supports the ATF's revised definition of "unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substance" as it aligns with court interpretations. However, they argue that the ATF should provide further specific guidance and refinements to ensure the definition complies with the *United States v. Hemani* decision and to help federal firearms licensees (FFLs) navigate complex legal and employment requirements.

SEARCH, a nonprofit organization representing state justice information systems, supports the ATF's updated guidance but argues it is currently insufficient due to a lack of specific, objective criteria. They request that the ATF provide clear definitions for terms like "recent" and "regular" use to ensure consistent nationwide application and reduce operational burdens on state agencies.

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.

The commenter supports the proposed action but argues that the rule should be revised to include specific, objective, and time-bound definitions for "recent" and "ongoing" drug use. They advocate for a risk-based framework that distinguishes between high-risk substances like fentanyl and lower-risk substances like marijuana, while emphasizing the need for clear evidentiary standards to ensure consistency and fairness.

The commenter supports the revised definition because it distinguishes between one-time drug users and those with chronic addictions. They argue that data shows addicts are significantly more likely to be involved in gun violence, and the revision helps preserve gun rights for the majority while targeting high-risk individuals.

Michael Ravnitzky argues that the proposed rule is a "legislative rule" being improperly presented as an "interpretive rule" to bypass the notice-and-comment process. He contends that the rule is impermissibly vague due to a lack of concrete definitions and creates an operational gap for law enforcement and licensees by removing long-standing inference examples.