Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09156

I am submitting this comment in response to the proposed rule revising the definitions of "adjudicated as a mental defective" and "committed to a mental institution" under 27 CFR 478.11. I write in support of the core due process protections this proposed rule would establish, and to urge ATF to strengthen them further. No constitutional right, including the right to keep and bear arms, should be stripped from a person without a genuine adversarial process. As the proposed rule itself documents, the overwhelming majority of the more than 250,000 veterans reported to NICS under the current definition were disarmed by a single VA rating official with no hearing, no right to counsel, and no independent judicial review. That is not adjudication. It is an administrative determination being treated as though it carries the weight of a court judgment, and it has been allowed to permanently extinguish a fundamental right on that basis alone. A person should not lose a constitutional right because an agency employee, acting alone and without the procedural safeguards this proposed rule finally proposes to require, decided they needed help managing a bank account. I want to raise a consequence of the current, overbroad definition that deserves more attention than it has received. When any acknowledgment of a mental health difficulty, financial vulnerability, or need for assistance can result in a lifetime firearms prohibition entered without a hearing, people learn quickly that seeking help carries a permanent cost. A veteran who suspects he could benefit from a fiduciary to help manage his benefits, or a person who might benefit from evaluation or treatment for a mental health condition, has every incentive under the current regime to conceal that need rather than disclose it. The rule as it currently stands does not make anyone safer. It punishes honesty and rewards concealment. It teaches people that the safest thing to do, if they want to keep their rights, is to hide the very conditions they could and should be getting treated for. That is a perverse outcome for a regulation whose stated purpose is public safety, and I believe it has likely driven people away from care they needed, with consequences far more serious than an untreated financial literacy gap. I therefore support narrowing the definition of "adjudicated as a mental defective" so that it no longer sweeps in people whose only finding is an isolated inability to manage financial affairs, and I support the proposed procedural requirements of notice, a hearing before an unbiased adjudicator, the right to counsel, and a clear and convincing evidence standard. These are not novel or radical protections. They are the baseline process this country already requires before depriving someone of far less significant interests than a constitutional right. I would also urge ATF to consider building a genuine dangerousness determination into the process, rather than relying solely on the categorical exclusions in the proposed rule. The goal of these procedural protections should not be to weaken the ability to identify people who truly pose a danger to themselves or others. It should be to ensure that people are never disarmed simply because they asked for help. A person who is a danger to themselves or others should go through a real adjudication that says so, with the protections this rule outlines. A person who is not should never have been disqualified in the first place, and should not have to fear that seeking treatment will cost them their rights. I appreciate ATF's willingness to revisit this regulation and its unusually candid discussion of the due process failures in the current framework. I urge the agency to finalize a rule that protects both public safety and the individual liberty of every person who might otherwise decide silence is safer than seeking care.