Revising Definition of Unlawful User of or Addicted to Controlled Substance

The commenter, an Operations Manager at a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), supports the ATF's move to revise the definition of an unlawful user of a controlled substance. They request specific clarifications regarding how FFLs should handle state-issued medical marijuana cards and whether factors like the odor of marijuana should constitute "reason to know" for stopping a transaction.

The commenter supports the proposed action, which involves tools to reduce overdoses and deaths. They argue that these measures are essential for saving lives and express concern for those who would be unable to intervene during a drug overdose.

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.

A veteran who uses medical marijuana for PTSD argues that medical marijuana patients should retain their Second Amendment rights to purchase firearms. The commenter contends that there is no correlation between medical marijuana use and violent behavior and requests that the definition of an unlawful user be revised to allow these individuals to exercise their 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 expresses a mixed position, acknowledging that the ATF's revision is a step in the right direction but arguing that it remains problematic. They argue that the definition should be more nuanced to account for varying levels of substance use and to ensure that safe, nonviolent individuals are not unfairly deprived of their Second Amendment rights.

The commenter supports the rule because it introduces nuance by focusing on patterns of drug use rather than isolated incidents, which protects one-time users and rehabilitated individuals from being unfairly labeled. However, the commenter notes that the rule remains somewhat vague and suggests establishing specific timeframes and definitions for "extended period" and "pattern" to improve clarity and enforcement.

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.