Revising Definition of Unlawful User of or Addicted to Controlled Substance

The American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) supports the ATF's effort to clarify the definition of an unlawful user of controlled substances but requests specific language updates. They argue that the regulation should use the terms "licensed practitioner" and "prescribing practitioner" instead of "physician" to ensure that patients receiving lawful prescriptions from nurse practitioners are not incorrectly deemed unlawful users.

An individual argues that the definition of an "unlawful user" should be updated to exempt people with valid medical marijuana cards. They contend that these individuals are using the substance lawfully for medical purposes and that the current definition is unnecessarily adversarial to patients.

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 supports the ATF's interim final rule because it provides much-needed clarity by separating "addicted" from "unlawful user" and emphasizing ongoing use without a prescription. They suggest the rule could be improved by explicitly excluding remote past use, providing clear guidance examples for FFLs, and committing to transparency through aggregate data reporting.

The commenter, an individual interested in firearm regulatory processes, supports the rule because it aligns agency regulations with judicial precedents regarding the "temporal nexus" and "regularity" of drug use. They argue that while the change introduces some ambiguity and requires new operational guidance for NICS examiners, it reduces potentially erroneous denials and better reflects legal interpretations.

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.

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.

The commenter supports the ATF's proposal to require evidence of ongoing drug use rather than a single past incident to define an unlawful user. However, they argue that the underlying premise is still flawed and that rights should only be restricted based on dangerous conduct rather than status as a drug user.

The commenter supports the revision to clarify the definition of an "unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance." They argue that a more precise definition will ensure that regulations focus on individuals with serious addictions who pose a risk to public safety while protecting responsible citizens from overly broad legal interpretations.

The commenter argues that the current definition of an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance is vague and unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. They advocate for a definition based on habitual patterns that cause immediate life-threatening consequences and psycho-physiological dependence, rather than single instances of use.