⚠ As of February 2026: Marijuana is still a federal Schedule I drug. Trump signed a rescheduling order — but it hasn’t taken effect. Here’s what that means for your gun rights.
⚠ Important Notice — Not Legal Advice
NY Safe Inc. is a firearms training and Second Amendment advocacy organization — not a law firm. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. This information is presented for awareness only. Federal and state firearms law intersects with drug law in complex and rapidly changing ways. If any of this may affect your situation, consulting a qualified Second Amendment attorney is not optional — it is essential.
For nearly 30 years, a single federal regulatory definition quietly stripped some law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights — based on a single drug test, a single arrest, or one acknowledged past use within a 12-month window. On January 22, 2026, the ATF moved to fix that. But the story is far more complicated than the headlines suggest — especially if you’re a New York gun owner or pistol license applicant.
Yes, the ATF issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) narrowing who qualifies as a federally prohibited “unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance” under 27 C.F.R. §478.11. And yes, President Trump signed an executive order in December 2025 directing the rescheduling of marijuana. But here’s what those headlines leave out:
Before you read further — know these four facts:
- Marijuana is still federally illegal — the executive order hasn’t changed that yet.
- The ATF’s new standard narrows federal risk, but does not eliminate it for current users.
- New York’s “good moral character” requirement gives licensing officers enormous discretion — any drug use history can be used against you, regardless of federal changes.
- ATF Form 4473 still requires honest answers — lying on it is a federal felony.
This article breaks down all of it — the ATF rule, Trump’s rescheduling order and its real status, the Rahimi ruling, New York’s good moral character trap, and what it all means for your rights today. It’s the most complete guide on this topic you’ll find written for New York gun owners.
📄 In This Article
- The Federal Prohibition — Background
- What the ATF’s New Rule Actually Says
- Trump’s Rescheduling Order — What It Does (and Doesn’t) Do
- Why This Matters for New York Applicants
- The Good Moral Character Trap — NY’s Wild Card
- Rahimi, Bruen and the “Dangerous Person” Standard
- NY Safe’s Position: Firearms and Intoxicants Never Mix
- What Comes Next: United States v. Hemani
- How to Submit Your Public Comment
- Frequently Asked Questions
1. The Federal Prohibition — Background
Under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3), it is a federal felony for any person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess, purchase, or receive a firearm. This prohibition is one of the disqualifying categories checked during every NICS background check — and a critical hurdle in New York’s pistol license application process.
The problem was the 1997 regulatory definition, which allowed NICS examiners to infer unlawful user status from a single triggering event within the past 12 months — one conviction, one arrest, one positive drug test. Federal courts consistently rejected this broad standard, holding that “unlawful user” requires regular use over an extended period, continuing into the present. As we’ve covered in our analysis of 2025’s most consequential 2A court battles, the post-Bruen era has consistently forced federal agencies to narrow overbroad firearms prohibitions.
ATF’s own field enforcement had already drifted away from the single-incident standard. The new IFR brings the written rule into alignment with both court decisions and real-world enforcement practice — but as you’ll see below, several major hazards remain.
2. What the ATF’s New Rule Actually Says
The revised definition at 27 C.F.R. §478.11, effective January 22, 2026, separates “unlawful user” and “addicted” into two narrower categories:
| Term | Old Standard (1997) | New Standard (Jan. 2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Unlawful User | Inferred from a single conviction, arrest, or drug test within the past 12 months | Must regularly use a controlled substance over an extended period continuing into the present, without a lawful prescription |
| Addicted | Broadly applied; single-incident inferences permitted | Must show a pattern of compulsive use with impaired control |
| Prescription Users | Unclear protection for minor deviations from prescription instructions | Explicitly NOT disqualified for slight or immaterial deviations from a lawful prescription |
The old “inference” examples have been eliminated entirely from the regulatory text. Per ATF’s own Federal Register filing, roughly 4,284 people per year had been receiving NICS denials under single-incident inferences that no longer apply.
Read the full rule at the Federal Register, Docket No. ATF-2026-0034. This is a real, meaningful step forward — but read the next two sections before concluding it solves your problem.
3. Trump’s Rescheduling Order — What It Does (and Doesn’t) Do
You may have heard that President Trump signed an executive order to reschedule marijuana — and you may be wondering whether that changes your firearms rights. The honest answer: not yet, and possibly not soon.
On December 18, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14370, titled “Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research,” directing the Attorney General to expedite the rulemaking process to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. This would formally acknowledge marijuana’s accepted medical use and lower its abuse classification — a significant policy shift.
| ✓ What the EO Does | ✗ What the EO Does NOT Do |
|---|---|
| Directs the AG to prioritize completing the DEA rescheduling rulemaking process | Immediately reschedule marijuana — that requires a completed DEA rulemaking |
| Acknowledges marijuana’s medical use and support for research | Legalize marijuana federally — even Schedule III substances are controlled |
| Signal political willingness to reform federal cannabis policy | Change the firearms prohibition — even if rescheduled to Schedule III, marijuana would remain a controlled substance |
| Potentially reduce some research barriers and business tax burdens | Remove the §922(g)(3) prohibition for marijuana users — that would require separate Congressional action |
⚠ The Contradiction Gun Owners Need to Know
While Trump signed the rescheduling order, his own DOJ — including the DEA and ATF — has simultaneously directed aggressive prosecution of marijuana possession, including federal charges for personal use and possession. DEA agents have gone undercover to purchase small amounts of marijuana and charged individuals in federal court. The agency overseeing rescheduling is the same agency prosecuting possession. Until a final DEA rule takes effect, marijuana is still Schedule I and marijuana users remain federally prohibited persons under §922(g)(3).
The DEA rescheduling process itself remains legally complicated. An ongoing interlocutory appeal over claims of agency bias has stalled the administrative hearing process. The DEA has confirmed the appeal “remains pending” with no briefing schedule set — meaning the path to a final rescheduling rule is neither clear nor swift. Legal experts widely expect challenges from both anti-rescheduling advocates and, potentially, Congressional action under the Congressional Review Act.
Bottom line: Do not make any firearms decisions based on the assumption that marijuana has been rescheduled. It has not. Monitor this space — NY Safe will update readers as the DEA rulemaking process moves forward.
4. Why This Matters for New York Applicants
New York’s pistol license process is among the most demanding in the nation. Whether you’re applying in Suffolk County, Nassau County, or New York City, the process involves detailed personal histories, character references, and federal NICS checks. A federal prohibitor stops the process cold.
New York legalized recreational cannabis in 2021 under the MRTA — yet marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. This conflict has real consequences at the licensing window. Under the old single-incident inference rule, a single positive drug test or past admission could trigger a NICS denial. The new ATF rule narrows that federal exposure significantly: past or infrequent marijuana use, particularly if it has stopped, should no longer be sufficient to classify someone as an unlawful user at the federal level.
This also affects New Yorkers holding or applying for non-resident concealed carry permits from states like Utah, Maryland, or Washington D.C. — all involve federal background checks governed by the same NICS system.
⚠ Form 4473 — The Line You Cannot Cross
ATF Form 4473 — required at every licensed dealer purchase — still directly asks whether you are an unlawful user of marijuana or any controlled substance. New York’s MRTA does not change this. Trump’s executive order does not change this. Answering “no” when you are a current unlawful user is a federal felony, period. Do not answer this form based on assumptions about rescheduling. Consult an attorney first.
5. The Good Moral Character Trap — New York’s Wild Card
Here is the critical point that most articles about this ATF rule miss entirely — and it’s the one most likely to affect New York gun owners.
Even if you clear the federal NICS check under the new ATF standard, New York licensing officers retain broad independent authority to deny your pistol license application on “good moral character” grounds — and drug use, past or present, can absolutely factor into that determination.
New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), enacted in 2022 in response to Bruen, requires that all applicants demonstrate “the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.” That definition is extraordinarily broad — and deliberately so.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on NY’s Good Moral Character Standard:
“The CCIA’s definition of ‘character’ is a proxy for dangerousness: whether the applicant, if licensed to carry a firearm, is likely to pose a danger to himself, others, or public safety.”
— U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Antonyuk v. James (2024)
Importantly, the Supreme Court declined to hear Antonyuk v. James in April 2025, leaving the Second Circuit’s ruling intact. The good moral character requirement remains fully enforceable in New York.
What does this mean practically? A licensing officer can consider any evidence suggesting an applicant poses a risk — including:
- A history of marijuana or drug use, even if legal under state law
- Past drug-related arrests, even without conviction
- Admitted recreational drug use on your application or in an interview
- Social media posts suggesting drug use
- Any pattern of behavior that an officer characterizes as reflecting poor judgment
This is not hypothetical. As we’ve documented in our analysis of how New York’s broken licensing system denies applicants by zip code, licensing officers in New York — particularly in New York City — have historically used maximum discretion to minimize permits. The CCIA’s good moral character standard gives them an even broader legal hook to do so.
The ATF’s new rule may protect you at the federal NICS level.
It does not automatically protect you from New York’s good moral character review.
These are two separate gatekeepers — but both can be challenged by an informed applicant with the right legal support.
6. What Rahimi Actually Held — and Why It’s Not the End of the Story
This is where accuracy really matters — because Rahimi is widely misread, including by people who should know better. Before concluding that this case is a green light for broad government disarmament, read what the Court actually said.
In United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on a very specific and deliberately narrow question: whether the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order was constitutional — but only where that order included an individualized judicial finding that the person posed a credible threat to another’s physical safety.
The Actual Holding — United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024):
“When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
— Chief Justice Roberts, majority opinion. The disarmament lasts only while the order is in effect — not permanently.
Three words in that holding are load-bearing: “found by a court.” The Court was explicit that disarmament required an individualized judicial determination — not an administrative presumption, not a licensing officer’s discretionary opinion, and not a categorical status. And the NRA-ILA was equally explicit in its post-decision statement: “This decision holds only that an individual who poses a clear threat of violence may be temporarily disarmed after a judicial finding of dangerousness.”
Equally important is what the Court refused to decide:
- Whether disarmament is constitutional under the statute’s other prong — which does not require an express judicial finding of dangerousness
- Whether the government may disarm someone permanently (the Court noted disarmament ends when the order expires)
- Whether disarmament without a hearing or due process satisfies the Second Amendment
- Whether broad status-based categorical bans — like the drug user prohibition in §922(g)(3) — are constitutional under this framework
✓ What Rahimi Actually Means for Gun Rights Advocates
The Federalist Society noted that Rahimi was “a victory so small and hollow it might feel more like an 8-1 tie” for the government. Crucially, the Court rejected the government’s argument that it can disarm anyone deemed “irresponsible” or not “law-abiding.” That theory — used post-Bruen to justify sweeping character-based licensing tests — was explicitly taken off the table. The Court also emphasized that Rahimi’s disarmament was valid only because a court made an individualized finding of dangerousness, not because he belonged to a disfavored category.
Here is what this means in plain terms for the drug user question: The §922(g)(3) prohibition — the blanket federal ban on all “unlawful users” possessing firearms — is a categorical, status-based ban with no individualized judicial finding required. That is a fundamentally different animal than what Rahimi upheld. This is precisely why United States v. Hemani at the Supreme Court is so significant — it will decide whether a categorical drug-user prohibition can survive Bruen’s historical tradition test without the individualized court finding that Rahimi required.
And here is the important point about New York’s good moral character standard: while the Second Circuit cited Rahimi’s dangerousness language to uphold the CCIA’s character requirement, that holding is still being tested. Rahimi’s jurisprudence is still developing. Lower courts are wrestling with how it applies. And the door to as-applied challenges — where an individual argues that their specific circumstances do not justify disarmament — remains wide open. Justice Gorsuch wrote in concurrence that the ruling “leaves open the question whether the government may disarm a person without a judicial finding that he poses a credible threat.”
The Burden Is On Us — and That’s an Opportunity
Rahimi’s jurisprudence is still growing. Courts are still working through how the “dangerous person” principle applies to drug users, licensing applicants, and categorical prohibitions. That means the outcome is not fixed — and educated, engaged gun owners who assert their rights proactively will shape it.
The responsibility falls on the people: to educate the courts, challenge overbroad applications, and win their rights back through a legal system that is actively listening. That starts with knowing the law precisely — including its limits.
What does this mean practically for a New Yorker denied a pistol license on good moral character grounds citing past drug use? It means the denial is not necessarily the final word — especially if there was no individualized judicial proceeding, no finding of actual dangerousness, and the drug use in question was past, infrequent, or legal under state law. Those are exactly the facts that as-applied challenges are built on.
We covered the broader Second Amendment landscape, including how Bruen and Rahimi interact in ongoing litigation, in our post on the Supreme Court’s expanding 2A docket. The ground is shifting — and for the first time in years, it is shifting with the potential for gun owners to win it back.
7. NY Safe’s Position: Firearms and Intoxicants Never Mix
We want to be absolutely clear, because this subject demands it.
NY Safe Inc. does not advocate the use of marijuana, alcohol, or any other substance. Every drug carries real health risks, legal liabilities, and dangers that science continues to document. Research on cannabis’s effects on cognition, judgment, motor control, and reaction time is ongoing — and the findings are not reassuring for anyone who handles firearms. The same is true for alcohol and many prescription medications. All of them impair. All of them create risk. We learn more about those risks every day.
Our position is absolute and non-negotiable:
Firearms and any form of intoxication do not mix — period.
Not alcohol. Not marijuana. Not prescription meds that impair judgment.
Being under the influence while handling, carrying, or storing firearms is dangerous, irresponsible, and in many cases criminal under both New York state law and federal law. This is not a fine print disclaimer. It is a foundational rule of safe firearms ownership — one we reinforce in every course we teach.
What we do advocate is the protection of constitutional rights for law-abiding Americans who make responsible choices. Denying someone a firearm based on a single past incident — one that courts have consistently found insufficient to establish ongoing unlawful use — is a civil rights issue. That’s why the ATF rule change matters. That’s why we’re covering it. And that’s why we’re also covering all the ways those new protections remain incomplete in New York.
8. What Comes Next: United States v. Hemani at the Supreme Court
The ATF’s IFR is explicitly an interim measure. ATF noted in the Federal Register that it may further revise the definition after the Supreme Court resolves United States v. Hemani — a case directly challenging the constitutionality of the entire §922(g)(3) prohibition under Bruen’s historical tradition framework.
Multiple circuits have upheld the drug-user prohibition. Others have questioned its historical basis. The Second Amendment Foundation and other organizations have actively litigated the issue. Hemani could either entrench the prohibition or strike it down entirely — and the outcome will shape how the ATF’s interim rule is ultimately finalized. Until the Court rules, this remains one of the most consequential open questions in Second Amendment law.
The NRA-ILA and NSSF are both monitoring and expected to provide formal public comments. The Second Amendment Foundation has been active in challenging the §922(g)(3) prohibition through litigation.
The law here is actively evolving on three simultaneous fronts: ATF rulemaking, DEA rescheduling, and Supreme Court litigation. NY Safe will monitor all three and report developments on our NY firearms law blog. Check our NY Firearms Law Resource Library for the most current status on all active cases.
9. How to Submit Your Public Comment
ATF is accepting public comments on this IFR through June 30, 2026. If you or someone you know was denied a firearm under the old single-incident standard — or if you have experience with how these denials affect lawful New Yorkers — your input directly shapes whether this rule gets strengthened or reversed in the final version.
Submit online at Regulations.gov or by mail:
Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226
ATTN: RIN 1140-AB03 | Deadline: June 30, 2026
10. Frequently Asked Questions
Bottom Line: Real Progress, Real Hazards, Real Opportunity
The ATF’s revised “unlawful user” definition ends automatic federal denials based on a single past incident — a genuine civil rights correction. Trump’s rescheduling order signals political momentum, but marijuana is still federally illegal today and the DEA process faces significant hurdles. The Hemani case could ultimately strike down the entire §922(g)(3) prohibition.
For New York gun owners, two serious hazards remain: (1) marijuana is still Schedule I, Form 4473 still requires honest answers, and the ATF rule only narrows — not eliminates — the federal risk for current users; (2) New York’s good moral character standard is an independent state-level gatekeeper with broad discretion over drug use history.
But here’s what Rahimi actually tells us: the Supreme Court held only that temporary disarmament is constitutional when a court makes an individualized finding of dangerousness — not that categorical drug-user bans are settled law. The Court explicitly left open permanent disarmament, status-based categorical bans, and disarmament without due process. Rahimi’s jurisprudence is still growing. The field is still being contested.
The responsibility falls on gun owners to assert their rights, educate the courts through as-applied challenges, and engage the legal process proactively. That work is happening right now — in Hemani, in the ATF comment period, and in licensing appeals across New York. Get informed, get trained, and get involved. Follow our NY Firearms Law Resource Library for ongoing updates on every active front.
Stay Informed. Stay Trained. Stay Ready.
NY Safe Inc. offers New York’s most comprehensive 18-hour DCJS-approved concealed carry course, multi-state permit training, and ongoing Second Amendment legal education. Knowledge of your rights and your responsibilities go hand in hand.
Related Reading from NY Safe
- Marijuana and Firearms: The Legal Risks for Concealed Carry Holders
- NY Sensitive Locations Law 2026: Complete Legal Status Report
- How to Get a NY Concealed Carry License: County-by-County Guide
- NY Firearms Law Resource Library — All Active Cases & Laws
- Supreme Court Takes Up Wolford v. Hawaii: What It Means for NY
- 2025’s Most Important Second Amendment Court Battles
- Castle Doctrine in NY: Know Your Rights
Sources & References
- ATF Interim Final Rule, Federal Register Vol. 91, No. 14 — Docket No. ATF-2026-0034 (Jan. 22, 2026)
- ATF Official Rulemaking Page — RIN 1140-AB03
- 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) — Gun Control Act of 1968 (Cornell LII)
- 27 C.F.R. §478.11 — Revised Regulatory Definition (eCFR)
- Congressional Research Service: Legal Consequences of Rescheduling Marijuana (Congress.gov)
- Executive Order 14370, “Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research” (Dec. 18, 2025)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
- Antonyuk v. James, 2d Cir. (2024); cert. denied, April 2025
- United States v. Hemani — pending, U.S. Supreme Court
- NRA-ILA: ATF Rewrites Rules for Unlawful Drug Users (Jan. 26, 2026)
No responses yet