The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) published an interim final rule on January 22, 2026, changing its definition of who is considered an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” and thus barred from owning or receiving firearms under federal law.
This revision arrives as more states relax their marijuana laws and as a Second Amendment challenge to the underlying statute approaches review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The new rule excludes drug use that is remote, infrequent, sporadic, or occurs under medical supervision from prohibiting firearm ownership. It remains uncertain if this narrower interpretation will meet scrutiny at the Supreme Court.
Previously, ATF’s 1997 rule broadly interpreted these terms and included inferences such as recent convictions or multiple arrests for controlled substance offenses within specified timeframes. Some federal appellate courts later required stricter proof than these inferences allowed. For example, the Ninth Circuit decided that the government must show a defendant took drugs regularly over an extended period concurrent with gun possession.
This trend increased after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling required historical justification for modern laws limiting conduct protected by the Second Amendment. Several appellate courts found limits to applying federal prohibitions on addiction and unlawful drug use—especially regarding marijuana users—if inconsistent with historical tradition.
One case from the Fifth Circuit found it unconstitutional to bar nonviolent marijuana users of sound mind from possessing firearms if they were not carrying while under the influence. In United States v. Connelly, the court stated:
“The short of it is that our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon (and for that reason Paola’s facial challenges to §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) fail), but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage. Nor, contrary to what the government contends, do restrictions on the mentally ill or more generalized traditions of disarming ‘dangerous’ persons apply to nonviolent, occasional drug users when of sound mind. We AFFIRM as to Paola’s as-applied challenge and REVERSE as to her facial challenges.”
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear another related case—U.S. v. Hemani—from the Fifth Circuit involving allegations beyond mere drug use but ultimately centered on admitted regular marijuana use alongside firearm possession.
The ATF’s updated rule removes prior inferences used since 1997 for determining prohibited status due to addiction or unlawful use. Under this rule:
– A prohibited addict is defined as someone “who uses a controlled substance and demonstrates a pattern of compulsively using the controlled substance, characterized by impaired control over use[.]”
– A prohibited “unlawful user” is one “who regularly uses a controlled substance over an extended period of time continuing into the present, without a lawful prescription or in a manner substantially different from that prescribed by a licensed physician[.]”
The rule clarifies: “A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire, ship, transport, receive, or possess the firearm.” However: “A person is not an unlawful user of a controlled substance if the person has ceased regularly unlawfully using the substance, or if the person’s unlawful use is isolated or sporadic or does not otherwise demonstrate a pattern of ongoing use.”
Regarding prescription drugs: “A person is also not an unlawful user if the person, while using a lawfully prescribed controlled substance, deviates slightly or immaterially from the instructions of the prescribing physician.”
While targeting cases like Hemani’s involving repeated illegal drug use where firearms are accessible, this new approach allows more flexibility for sporadic users and those whose medically supervised drug use conforms materially with prescriptions.
Importantly, state-legal marijuana remains unaddressed; there are no categorical exemptions for such users under federal law regardless of compliance with state statutes since marijuana remains federally illegal.
The interim final rule became effective upon publication but will accept public comments until June 30, 2026 via the government’s e-rulemaking portal. Changes could occur before finalization depending on input received during this period.
It is expected that before comments close on June 30th next year—the U.S. Supreme Court will issue its opinion in Hemani—and ATF indicates future rules will reflect any direction given by that decision.
Buckeye Firearms Association operates as a grassroots group dedicated primarily within Ohio focused on defending individuals’ rights related to legal firearm ownership—including updates about legislation affecting gun rights according to their official website. They provide information about relevant legal changes impacting gun owners in Ohio along with alerts about politics affecting gun rights here.
