DOJ Issues “Relief From Disabilities” Proposal

On July 22, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a proposed rule to revive a statutory process for the restoration of Second Amendment rights lost under federal law as a result of convictions or other disqualifying circumstances. NRA-ILA will be submitting its own comments on the proposal, and we urge our members to do so as well. Thoughtful, pro-gun comments will ensure the best outcome for this critical program.

NRA often emphasizes that it represents peaceable, law-abiding gun owners. Yet the Second Amendment is a restraint on government; it is not a prize the government bestows only on whom it chooses. There are limits to the restrictions the government can place on gun ownership, even when (as is almost always the case) it claims to be acting in the interest of “public safety” or “keeping guns out of the wrong hands.” Rights restoration is an important corrective measure when the government’s “public safety” efforts overshoot the mark.

Federal law imposes a ban on firearm possession and receipt for 13 categories of individuals based on certain underlying convictions or events. In most of these circumstances, the ban is permanent. The most common category includes those who have been “convicted in any court of … a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” These crimes, under ATF’s interpretation of the statute, can include not just felonies but misdemeanors punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment.

Whether the government can permanently cancel a person’s Second Amendment rights for conviction of a nonviolent offense is a question that has not been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and lower courts have reached differing conclusions. People have been disqualified for such “crimes,” however, as illegal interstate sale of deer antlers, fraudulently selling non-Medicare-compliant shoe inserts and writing bad checks. Closer to home, some purely possessory firearm offenses (especially in anti-gun states) that ILA would argue violate the Second Amendment are currently punishable as disqualifying crimes.

Even if one generally supports strong enforcement of existing criminal laws, as does NRA-ILA, it’s easy to understand why a permanent ban on the right to keep and bear arms based on nonviolent conduct, or even on the exercise of the right itself, is fundamentally unjust.

Theoretically, the federal ban does not count with respect to convictions that have been “expunged … or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored.” Federal case law, however, has severely narrowed the effectiveness of most state expungements or rights-restoration procedures in removing federal firearm disabilities. Thus, a person could have had his or her Second Amendment rights restored at the state level but still be federally prohibited.

Pardons can be effective, but it is extremely unlikely for most ordinary folks to get the governor of their state or the president interested in considering their pardon requests.

The Gun Control Act (GCA), however, offers another option codified at 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), a petition to “the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws[.]” The attorney general (AG) is empowered to “grant such relief if it is established to his [or her] satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.”

Long ago, ATF was chosen to administer 925(c) petitions. Agency data from 1981 to 1991 show that 13,790 “relief” investigations were conducted during that time. Of these, 5,598 cases (about 40.6%) were approved and 3,498 (about 25.4%) were denied. The remaining applicants either abandoned their applications, were not disqualified, or—contrary to ATF’s standards for relief—were still prohibited from possessing a firearm under state law or were on parole or probation.

In 1992, however, Congress passed an appropriations rider defunding ATF’s administration of the program over concerns the agency was devoting too many resources to processing the petitions. There was also lobbying by anti-gun groups claiming restorations endangered public safety, although the statistics they cited indicated only 0.2% of applicants went on to be convicted of a crime after being granted relief. Nevertheless, that appropriations rider has been renewed every year since.

After the Trump administration released its executive order Protecting Second Amendment Rights last February, NRA-ILA weighed in with suggestions for implementation. Among ILA’s recommendations:

The government should not try to limit the right of prohibited persons to regain their Second Amendment rights when the original basis for their prohibition no longer applies, whether from recovery from mental illness, rehabilitation after conviction or other material changes in circumstances. The government should not interpret provisions of federal law that allow for restoration of Second Amendment rights in a way that renders them practically meaningless or that creates legal traps for people who have satisfied a state restoration scheme, only to later discover that restoration is not recognized by the federal government.

Shortly thereafter, the Trump administration took steps to restore the Second Amendment rights of several individuals under the power vested in the AG by 925(c). To avoid violating the funding rider, the AG revoked ATF’s authority to consider relief from disabilities petitions with an interim final rule published in March. NRA-ILA, in conjunction with the Second Amendment Foundation, commented favorably on that rule.

Now, with the latest rulemaking, DOJ proposes to reassign authority to consider relief petitions to the Office of the Pardon Attorney. The proposal also delineates the application process, with guidelines for the exercise of the AG’s discretion.

As welcome as these developments are, DOJ’s rulemaking needs work.

The new proposal is much more detailed and prescriptive than either the statute or the rule under which ATF was operating. In particular, the new proposal establishes a long list of circumstances that will presumptively result in a denial of rights restoration. Some of these presumptions apply permanently. Others apply for periods of five or 10 years from various triggering events. The rulemaking’s preamble claims these circumstances represent bases of disability (mostly types of disqualifying convictions) “closely associated with dangerousness[.]”

It sounds reasonable, at first blush, to treat violent or “weapons-related” crimes more seriously and to be sure a person has established a track record of good behavior.

We do not agree, however, that all the offenses the proposal considers “closely associated with dangerousness” meet that standard. Some would even involve what ILA considers constitutionally protected conduct.

We have written many times in these pages, for example, about how travelers simply trying to check luggage containing a lawfully owned handgun at airports in the New York City metro area were arrested for not having a local license to possess or carry (which were not issued to out-of-state residents). We would consider this scenario a violation of the traveler’s civil rights—New York and New Jersey consider it a “felony firearms offense.”

The idea of a “felony” conviction sounds very serious. But Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, for one, has often written and spoken about the problem of overcriminalization in America. Some laws are simply too convoluted for ordinary Americans to understand and others harshly punish neutral conduct with no required showing of bad intent.

Again, we’d argue both these problems apply to many gun-control laws, which often depend on the application of dated legal language to evolving technology or punish a well-meaning concealed-carry licensee simply for misunderstanding reciprocity rules or the nuances of state firearm preemption laws.

The rulemaking additionally requires three character references by individuals not related to the applicant by blood or marriage who must swear under penalties of perjury to very specific facts about the applicant’s legal status, criminal history, use of drugs and alcohol, and mental health status. The pool of people willing and able to provide sufficient detail would in most cases be small, indeed.

Moreover, DOJ reserves the right to revoke restoration at any time, should it later determine an applicant was insufficiently forthcoming with information. It’s obvious how this authority (not mentioned in the underlying statute) could be abused by a future administration. Likewise unauthorized by 925(c), and subject to later abuse, is the imposition of an application fee, subject to ongoing re-evaluation and adjustment.

For all its detail, however, the proposal establishes no timelines for application processing and no requirement for information identifying successful applicants to be removed from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The easiest way to comment on the rulemaking—Application for Relief From Disabilities Imposed by Federal Laws With Respect to the Acquisition, Receipt, Transfer, Shipment, Transportation, or Possession of Firearms—is through the government’s official eRulemaking Portal at regulations.gov. Be sure to include docket number OAG191 with any submission. Comments will be accepted through Oct. 20, 2025.

Comments should respectfully offer feedback on the rule’s terms and language. Supporting data, information, legal authority, and personal experiences are especially helpful in illustrating problems with the rule or when suggesting changes.

DOJ’s rulemaking needs improvement but represents an important step in the agency’s recognition of the Second Amendment as a civil right. The input of pro-freedom Americans will help make the final product as fair and accessible as possible.