Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09156

I support ATF’s proposed revisions to the definitions of “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution.” The current definition is overly broad and has allowed people to lose a fundamental constitutional right based on circumstances that do not establish that they are incapable of safely and responsibly possessing a firearm. An inability to manage financial affairs, the appointment of a fiduciary, or the need for limited assistance in one area of life does not necessarily establish a serious, global intellectual disability. This problem has been particularly harmful to veterans. A veteran may need assistance managing VA benefits because of age, a physical condition, PTSD, or another limited difficulty while remaining fully capable of making responsible decisions in every other part of life. Such a determination should not automatically result in the loss of Second Amendment rights. The proposed rule properly focuses the definition on severe and broad intellectual or cognitive incapacity rather than an isolated functional limitation. It also correctly provides that a fiduciary appointed solely to assist with financial affairs, or a temporary guardian appointed because of a transient physical condition, does not by itself make someone “adjudicated as a mental defective.” I also support the proposed procedural protections. Before the government imposes a potentially lifelong firearms prohibition, the affected person should receive adequate notice, a hearing before an unbiased adjudicator, an opportunity to present evidence and confront adverse evidence, access to representation, and a meaningful burden of proof. Requiring at least clear and convincing evidence in a civil proceeding is appropriate when a fundamental constitutional right is at stake. The distinction between adjudication and involuntary commitment is also important. These are separate statutory categories and should not be blended together merely to broaden the number of prohibited persons. As a Federal firearms licensee, I do not expect this revision to have a significant direct effect on my business operations. Nevertheless, I strongly support it as an important correction. Firearms prohibitions should be based on individualized findings made through meaningful due process, not administrative shortcuts, stereotypes about mental health, or unrelated determinations concerning a person’s finances. ATF should finalize the proposed clarification and ensure that existing NICS records based solely on fiduciary appointments, limited financial incapacity, or other circumstances that no longer meet the revised definition are promptly reviewed and corrected. No person should remain deprived of a constitutional right under a standard the government itself has concluded is legally overbroad.