DOJ Opens a Path to Restore Federal Gun Rights for Some Felons

For more than three decades, Americans who lost their federal Second Amendment rights because of certain criminal convictions have faced a nearly impossible road to getting those rights back.

That is now changing.

The Department of Justice has finalized a new Federal Firearm Rights Restoration process that gives eligible individuals a formal opportunity to petition for the restoration of their federal firearm rights. Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the program on August 17, emphasizing a principle that Second Amendment advocates have been making for years:

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right.”

That statement is significant because the federal government has historically treated the loss of firearm rights as something that can become effectively permanent, even when a person's underlying offense did not involve violence and the individual may no longer pose a threat to public safety.

The new process does not simply erase federal firearm prohibitions. Instead, it establishes a mechanism under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) through which eligible individuals can ask the Attorney General to restore their federal rights on an individualized basis.

A Second Chance for Some Americans

Federal law generally prohibits people convicted of qualifying felonies from possessing firearms.

The problem has been that Congress created a statutory mechanism allowing the Attorney General to provide relief, but the federal process was effectively unavailable for most individuals for more than 30 years.

The new DOJ rule is intended to restore that process.

And the distinction matters.

This is not a blanket restoration of firearm rights for everyone with a felony conviction. DOJ says every application will be reviewed individually, and applicants must demonstrate that their circumstances, record, reputation and subsequent conduct show they are not likely to pose a danger to public safety.

That means someone who made a mistake years ago, completed his sentence and subsequently demonstrated years of law-abiding behavior may have a path that previously did not realistically exist.

Not Every Felon Will Qualify

The DOJ process contains significant restrictions.

Violent conduct is treated very differently from a nonviolent felony. DOJ has established presumptive disqualifiers that can make applicants ineligible for relief unless they can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances.

Permanent presumptive disqualifiers include certain felonies involving murder, rape or sexual assault, human trafficking, kidnapping, domestic violence, burglary, robbery, arson, certain gang-related offenses, terrorism, witness tampering and crimes involving the use of firearms or explosives, among others.

Other offenses carry five- or ten-year presumptive waiting periods.

For example, DOJ says that, absent extraordinary circumstances, an applicant generally will face a five-year presumptive denial period following a qualifying felony not otherwise covered by the more serious categories. Certain drug-trafficking, firearm-related and violent conduct can trigger a ten-year period.

So the headline should not be misunderstood.

The federal government is not simply handing guns back to convicted criminals.

It is creating a process through which certain people can demonstrate that they have been rehabilitated and no longer present the danger that justified the original prohibition.

The Constitution and the Question of Rehabilitation

This is where the broader Second Amendment debate becomes important.

A constitutional right is supposed to belong to the people—not simply to those who have never made a mistake.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons why someone who has demonstrated that he poses a continuing danger should not have access to firearms.

But there is a significant difference between saying that a dangerous individual should remain prohibited and saying that a person should lose a constitutional right forever because of a conviction from many years ago, regardless of subsequent conduct.

The new DOJ process recognizes that distinction.

The department's own rule says restoration should be based upon whether the applicant is likely to pose a danger to public safety and whether restoration would be consistent with the public interest.

That is a very different approach from treating every person with a felony conviction as permanently beyond redemption.

The Bruen Decision Changed the Conversation

The timing is also significant.

The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen changed the framework for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. The Court rejected the idea that courts should simply balance firearm regulations against government interests and instead emphasized whether a challenged restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

That decision has prompted continuing litigation over federal and state firearm restrictions.

The restoration issue raises another fundamental question:

If a person has served his sentence, demonstrated rehabilitation and no longer presents a danger, is permanent deprivation of a constitutional right justified?

The DOJ's new process does not answer every constitutional question surrounding firearm prohibitions. But it recognizes that individualized consideration matters.

The Process Will Require Proof

Applicants should not expect a simple form and an automatic approval.

DOJ's application process requires substantial documentation. Depending on the basis for the firearm prohibition, applicants may need court records, criminal-history information, proof that sentences have been completed, and other documentation. Applicants also must submit electronic fingerprints and character references.

The department also says the restoration process will not override independent state firearm prohibitions.

That is an important limitation.

Someone who receives federal restoration may still face restrictions under state law. DOJ specifically warns applicants that the federal program cannot remove a state firearm prohibition.

When Can Americans Apply?

The program is being rolled out in stages.

According to DOJ, applications will open to invited candidates on September 25, 2026. The process is scheduled to open to the public on November 4, 2026, initially allowing the first 5,000 applicants to apply. On January 4, 2027, the program is scheduled to expand further, with an application fee beginning at that point.

DOJ currently lists the application fee as $30, although applicants may also encounter costs associated with fingerprints and obtaining records. The department says fee waivers or reductions may be available for applicants who demonstrate financial hardship.

A Constitutional Right Should Not Be a Lifetime Sentence

There is a legitimate public-safety interest in keeping firearms away from people who present a genuine and continuing danger.

But there is also a legitimate constitutional interest in recognizing rehabilitation.

A person can serve a criminal sentence and change his life. He can remain crime-free for years, support a family, work, pay taxes and become a productive member of his community.

Should one mistake—or even one serious but nonviolent offense—necessarily mean that the government can permanently strip away a constitutional right for the rest of that person's life?

That is the question the new DOJ process at least allows the government to consider on an individual basis.

And that is an important development.

Attorney General Blanche's statement that “the Second Amendment is not a second-class right” is more than political rhetoric. It reflects the basic constitutional principle that rights should not be treated as privileges that government can permanently revoke without considering the circumstances of the individual involved.

The new restoration program does not guarantee that every applicant will regain his or her firearm rights. It does not erase state prohibitions, and serious violent offenders face substantial barriers to relief.

What it does provide is something that has been missing for decades:

A path back.

For Americans who have paid their debt to society, demonstrated rehabilitation and can show that they no longer pose a danger to the public, the opportunity to reclaim a fundamental constitutional right is an important step toward treating the Second Amendment like what the Constitution says it is—a right, not a privilege.