The Department of Justice Proposed Rule to Restore Firearms Rights to “Prohibited Persons”

July 24, 2026

The Department of Justice Proposed Rule to Restore Firearms

Rights to “Prohibited Persons”

The Gun Control Act (GCA) categorically prohibits certain

classes of individuals, including individuals convicted of

felony offenses, from possessing, receiving, shipping, or

transporting a firearm connected with interstate or foreign

commerce. The GCA also authorizes these covered

individuals to apply to the Attorney General to have their

firearms rights restored. In 2025, the Department of Justice

issued a proposed rule establishing guidelines for this

process to apply for “relief from disabilities.”

relief” if, upon consideration of the “circumstances

regarding the conviction, and the applicant’s record and

reputation,” the Secretary was “satisf[ied]” 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.” In 1986, Congress amended

§ 925(c) to allow any prohibited person to seek relief under

§ 922(g). Congress also authorized applicants denied relief

by the Secretary to submit petitions in federal court.

This In Focus summarizes the proposed rule. Before doing

so, it provides an overview of relevant law, including a

federal statute that effectively barred the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from

enforcing the relief statute, and relevant legal

developments, including the delegation of enforcement

responsibility of the relief statute to the Department of

Justice (DOJ). The In Focus closes with considerations for

Congress.

The administration of the original § 925(c) relief program

was delegated to the Director of ATF, then a bureau within

the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). In 2002,

Congress transferred ATF from Treasury to DOJ and

delegated relief applications to the Attorney General. In its

2025 proposed rule, DOJ asserted that ATF’s relief process

was beset by “ad hoc determinations” that compromised

public safety, adding that the process was “time consuming

and resource intensive.” According to DOJ, it was for these

reasons that, in 1992 and in subsequent appropriations

measures, Congress precluded ATF from using any funds

“to investigate or act upon applications for relief from

Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c).” In

United States v. Bean, acknowledging that ATF was barred

from denying an application by the appropriations

restriction, the Supreme Court held that courts have no

jurisdiction under the statute to restore firearms rights

absent an actual denial by the delegated executive authority.

The current version of § 925(c) directs relief applications to

the Attorney General.

Gun Control Act: Relevant Overview

The GCA, at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for nine

classes of individuals “to ship or transport in interstate or

foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce,

any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or

ammunition which has been shipped or transported in

interstate or foreign commerce.” The statute covers anyone

(1) who has been convicted in any court of a crime

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding

one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who

is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled

substance . . . ; (4) who has been adjudicated as a

mental defective or who has been committed to a

mental institution; (5) who, being an alien—(A) is

illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) [generally] has been admitted to the United

States under a nonimmigrant visa . . . ; (6) who has

been discharged from the Armed Forces under

dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a

citizen of the United States, has renounced his

citizenship; (8) who is subject to a [qualifying

domestic violence restraining order]; (9) who has

been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor

crime of domestic violence.

Agency Administration of § 925(c)

As first enacted, the 1968 GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 925(c)

allowed a single class of prohibited persons—an individual

convicted of a non-firearm-related felony—to apply for

relief from the statutory prohibition to the Secretary of the

Treasury. The GCA authorized the Secretary to “grant such

Background Supreme Court Cases

As noted, the GCA prohibits nine categories of individuals

from possessing firearms. In United States v. Rahimi, the

Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to one such

prohibition, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (applicable to

individuals subject to certain domestic violence restraining

orders), explaining that sufficient historical support existed

for the principle that “[w]hen an individual poses a clear

threat of physical violence to another, the threatening

individual may be disarmed” temporarily. On June 18,

2026, in United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court held

that another prohibition, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (applicable

to any person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to

any controlled substance”), does not “automatically

disarm[] anyone who regularly uses any amount of any

controlled substance for anything other than its ‘prescribed

purpose,’” regardless of individualized circumstances.

Proposed Rule

On July 22, 2025, the DOJ published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) at 90 FR 34394, entitled “Application

for Relief from Disabilities Imposed by Federal Laws with

https://crsreports.congress.gov

The Department of Justice Proposed Rule to Restore Firearms Rights to “Prohibited Persons”

Respect to the Acquisition, Receipt, Transfer, Shipment,

Transportation, or Possession of Firearms.” The proposed

rule seeks to implement § 925(c) by enhancing an interim

final rule (IFR), which was promulgated on March 20,

2025. The IFR acknowledged that appropriations riders

have prohibited ATF from using appropriated funds to

investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal

firearms disabilities since 1992 and stated that the Attorney

General was withdrawing the delegation to ATF to

administer § 925(c) providing “a clean slate on which to

build a new approach to implementing 18 U.S.C 925(c).”

The proposed rule sought public comment, and the period

closed on October 20, 2025. DOJ is expected to release a

final rule on this relief guidance.

The NPRM provides criteria that would structure and guide

the Attorney General’s discretionary determinations

regarding who is eligible for relief from federal firearms

disabilities under § 925(c). The NPRM states that relief

under § 925(c) does not restore the right to possess a

firearm under state law if the applicant is independently

subject to any such state-law prohibition. Relief also does

not extend to individuals who incur new disabilities after

the granting of relief.

The NPRM states that individuals convicted of

presumptively disqualifying crimes or otherwise

presumptively prohibited would likely not be eligible for

relief. The proposed rule specifically names fugitives from

justice (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(2)), unlawful users of and those

addicted to controlled substances (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)),

unlawfully present aliens or certain aliens admitted on

nonimmigrant visas (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)), individuals

subject to domestic violence restraining orders (18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(8)), and individuals currently serving a sentence of

imprisonment or currently under any form of supervision as

part of a criminal sentence as those who would be

presumptively ineligible for relief and denied relief absent

extraordinary circumstances. The proposed rule also

clarifies that applicants are presumptively disqualified if

they have been convicted under state or federal law of any

offense punishable by a term exceeding one year that

involves the death of another person; sexual abuse or sexual

assault; human trafficking; kidnapping; intimate partner and

domestic violence; animal abuse; burglary; robbery;

extortion; carjacking; arson; racketeering (if at least one act

is violent); gang-related offenses; assault or battery; threats

of violence; stalking; escape or rescue of a fugitive;

terrorism; witness tampering; manufacturing, possession,

transfer, or use of explosives; committing or threatening

acts of violence or using a firearm or explosive in the

course of committing that offense; requiring registry as a

sex offender; or manufacturing, importing, exporting,

distributing, or dispensing of a controlled substance.

The primary potential recipients of relief from federal

firearms disabilities under this proposed rule are those who

the Attorney General determines to be less likely to become

recidivists and whose access to firearms would “not be

contrary to public safety and the public interest.” These

individuals include those who have been convicted of a

crime punishable by more than one year in prison that is not

a listed presumptively disqualifying crime in the proposed

rule (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); have been adjudicated as a

mental defective or committed to a mental institution (18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)); have been discharged from the U.S.

armed forces under dishonorable conditions (18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(6)); have renounced their U.S. citizenship (18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(7)); or have been convicted in any court of

a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(9)) if the “applicant could show that the

underlying circumstances of the prior misdemeanor offense

did not involve a firearm or potentially lethal violence and

that the applicant’s good behavior over time . . . make relief

under section 925(c) appropriate.” Individuals who have

had their firearm rights revoked for these reasons would

need to prove that their relief from federal firearms

disabilities would be consistent with public safety and the

public interest.

The proposed rule also prescribes periods of delay during

which a person convicted of a crime is presumptively

disqualified from relief. For offenses that have a direct

relationship to violence, the proposed rule establishes a

minimum period of ten years—following the successful

conclusion of any term of probation, parole, supervised

release, or other supervision during which the offender

must not recidivate—before an application generally will be

considered. These crimes include those convicted of drug

distribution crimes, misdemeanor domestic violence

offenses, committing or threatening acts of violence, and

discharging a firearm or explosive in the course of

committing the aforementioned offenses. The proposed rule

further indicates a five-year period of presumed ineligibility

for all other offenses in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) that are not

violent or sexual in nature as defined in 18 U.S.C.

§ 921(a)(20). The relief statute, and the proposed rule,

extends to federal licensees (e.g., a dealer) that have been

barred from continuing their operations, though DOJ

estimates that the impact of the proposed rule on licensees

will be relatively low. Finally, the proposed rule estimates

that approximately 1 million people will apply for relief

within the first year of the program and that DOJ would

charge a $20 application fee to defray the costs of review.

Considerations for Congress

Congress could consider whether this proposed rule is

consistent with the policy goals of its prior ban on ATF

using appropriated funds for processing relief applications.

Congress could also consider whether to require a

comprehensive study assessing what types of offenders

would pose dangers to public safety if granted relief from

federal firearms disabilities as well as the efficacy of the

periods of delay in this proposed rule. Congress could

enshrine the Attorney General’s authority over such

decisions or aspects of the NPRM in statute. Congress

could instead maintain the status quo, observing how the

NPRM proceeds.

Dave S. Sidhu, Legislative Attorney

Jordan B. Cohen, Analyst in Firearms Policy

https://crsreports.congress.gov

IF13273

The Department of Justice Proposed Rule to Restore Firearms Rights to “Prohibited Persons”

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to

congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.

Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has

been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the

United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be

reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include

copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you

wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF13273 · VERSION 1 · NEW