Revising Definition of Unlawful User of or Addicted to Controlled Substance

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.

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.

An individual expresses concern that the proposed definition lacks a clear connection to dangerousness, making it vulnerable to legal challenges. The commenter argues that the rule unfairly penalizes individuals for past nonviolent offenses and places undue responsibility on Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs).

The commenter supports the ATF's proposal to clarify the "unlawful user" definition but argues that it needs modifications to ensure constitutional soundness. They specifically request that the rule better address the *Bruen* standard regarding dangerousness, resolve conflicts with state-level marijuana laws, and establish clearer evidentiary standards.

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, 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.

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 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.