Revising Definition of Unlawful User of or Addicted to Controlled Substance

The Firearms Policy Coalition and FPC Action Foundation support the ATF's decision to abandon a regulatory interpretation that disarmed individuals based on isolated evidence of drug use. However, they argue the final rule must go further by narrowing the definition of "unlawful user" to only include individuals with demonstrated incapacity or active intoxication, citing recent Supreme Court precedent.

GIFFORDS and Brady United Against Gun Violence oppose the ATF's interim final rule, arguing that it was issued without proper notice-and-comment procedures required by the APA and the Gun Control Act. They contend that the rule is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to consider safer, more nuanced alternatives that distinguish between different types and amounts of controlled substances.

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.

The commenter, who works with law-enforcement professionals, supports the ATF's proposed revision to the definition of "unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance." They argue that the new definition aligns with Supreme Court standards, provides better operational clarity for law enforcement, and prevents the unfair denial of firearm permits to individuals in legal medical cannabis programs.

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 updating the rules regarding unlawful users of controlled substances to protect public safety. However, they argue that the proposed changes should be more restrictive to align with recent Supreme Court precedents, specifically advocating that only individuals who are currently impaired or judicially determined to be dangerous should be barred from firearm ownership.

The commenter supports the ATF's effort to clarify the ambiguous definition of an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. They suggest that the ATF may want to delay the final rule until pending Supreme Court cases and the marijuana reclassification are fully finalized to ensure legal consistency.