On January 22, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued an interim final rule (IFR) revising how the agency determines who qualifies as an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” and is therefore barred from possessing or receiving firearms under federal law. The rule arrives amid widespread state-level liberalization of marijuana laws and as a major Second Amendment challenge to the underlying statute awaits review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Under the revised framework, drug use that is remote, infrequent, sporadic, or undertaken pursuant to a physician’s prescription or supervision would generally fall outside the prohibition. Whether this narrower interpretation will be sufficient to withstand Supreme Court scrutiny remains uncertain.
Federal law itself does not define the terms “addict” or “unlawful user.” ATF’s prior regulation, adopted in 1997, interpreted those terms broadly and relied on evidentiary “inferences,” such as a conviction for drug possession within the previous year, multiple arrests within five years with a recent arrest, or a positive drug test administered within the past year.
Several federal appellate courts, however, interpreted the statute more narrowly. The Ninth Circuit, for example, held that the government must prove a defendant used drugs regularly, over an extended period, and contemporaneously with firearm possession or acquisition. ATF’s inference-based approach did not align with that standard.
Judicial skepticism intensified after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires firearm regulations to be justified by historical analogues from the founding era. Following Bruen, multiple appellate courts curtailed enforcement of the prohibition against unlawful drug users, particularly as applied to marijuana use, finding it inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s historical tradition.
The Fifth Circuit went further, holding the prohibition unconstitutional as applied to a nonviolent marijuana user of sound mind who was not accused of carrying a firearm while intoxicated. In United States v. Connelly, the court concluded that while historical precedent may support restrictions on carrying firearms while intoxicated, it does not justify disarming sober individuals based solely on past drug use. The court rejected the government’s attempt to analogize such individuals to the mentally ill or otherwise “dangerous” persons.
The Supreme Court later agreed to review another Fifth Circuit case resolved under Connelly: United States v. Hemani. Unlike the defendant in Connelly, Hemani was portrayed by the government as a far less sympathetic figure. Prosecutors suggested he had ties to foreign terrorist organizations, engaged in drug trafficking, and illegally used cocaine.
Despite those allegations, Hemani’s actual conviction rested on his admitted marijuana use “every other day” and the discovery of drugs and a handgun during a search of his residence. The government conceded before the Fifth Circuit that Connelly required dismissal of the case, while reserving the argument that Connelly itself was wrongly decided.
Against this backdrop, ATF’s new IFR abandons the prior rule’s inference-based approach. It now defines a prohibited “addict” as someone who uses a controlled substance in a compulsive pattern marked by impaired control. A prohibited “unlawful user” is defined as someone who regularly uses a controlled substance over an extended period continuing into the present, without a lawful prescription or in a manner materially inconsistent with a physician’s instructions.
The rule explicitly rejects the notion that the government must prove a defendant was intoxicated at the moment of firearm possession. At the same time, it clarifies that isolated, sporadic, or discontinued drug use does not trigger the prohibition. Minor or immaterial deviations from a lawful prescription likewise do not qualify someone as an unlawful user.
The revised rule appears designed to capture fact patterns like Hemani’s—ongoing illegal drug use with ready access to firearms—while providing greater latitude for occasional users and those acting under medical supervision.
Notably, the IFR does not exempt marijuana use that is legal under state law, nor does it clarify whether state-authorized medical marijuana qualifies as “lawfully prescribed” under federal standards. Marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under federal law regardless of state legalization.
Although the IFR took effect upon publication, ATF will accept public comments through June 30, 2026. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision in Hemani before that deadline, and ATF has stated that the final rule—or a subsequent proposal—will account for the Court’s ruling.
