DOJ Offers Path for Restoring Individual Gun Rights: What to Know

For more than three decades, people who lost their gun rights because of a federal conviction had few options for getting them back.

Congress effectively shut down the federal application process in 1992 by barring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from spending money to investigate or act on individual applications. A presidential pardon remained an option, but the federal restoration process established specifically for such applications was effectively unavailable.

The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) is now reopening that door—and it expects plenty of people to walk through it. More than 25 million Americans are prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms because of felony convictions, along with an “untold number” prohibited for other reasons, according to the Justice Department.

DOJ estimates its new Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Program could receive 1 million applications in its first year and eventually attract “millions of applicants.”

Here’s what to know.

No Guarantees

Applicants will have to convince the Justice Department that they can safely have their gun rights restored.

DOJ will consider the circumstances that caused the person to lose gun rights, the applicant’s criminal record and reputation, and conduct since becoming prohibited from possessing a firearm. The attorney general must determine that the applicant is unlikely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that restoring the person’s gun rights would not be contrary to the public interest.

Applicants will be required to provide records and other information supporting their case. DOJ may also consider information from law enforcement agencies, courts, and other sources when reviewing an application.

The process is not limited to people with felony convictions. Federal law prohibits gun possession for several other reasons, including certain domestic-violence convictions and restraining orders, unlawful drug use, and some mental-health adjudications.

People who are eligible to apply are not guaranteed to have their rights restored. The new program gives them an opportunity to make their case to the federal government after that avenue was effectively unavailable to individuals for more than 30 years.

Not for Everyone

The Justice Department and Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control advocacy group, agree on at least one principle behind restoring gun rights: Some people should not get them back.

In comments submitted to DOJ, Everytown said it was “heartened” that the department planned to consider both an applicant’s past conduct and subsequent law-abiding behavior while screening out people for whom restoration would be inappropriate.

DOJ’s rules make it particularly difficult for people convicted of serious violent crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery to regain their gun rights. Registered sex offenders, fugitives, and certain people subject to restraining orders also face presumptions against having their rights restored. Other applicants may have to wait 5 or 10 years after completing their sentences, depending on their convictions.

Gun control advocates have concerns whether the DOJ will have enough manpower to review applications thoroughly.

Everytown for Gun Safety noted that ATF dedicated 40 staffers to review about 1,000 petitions a year prior to 1992.

According to the Congressional Research Service, ATF processed 22,969 applications to get gun rights back from 1968 through 1982, restoring firearm rights to 7,581 applicants. DOJ estimates the new gun-rights restoration program could receive 1 million applications in the first year and says it could attract “millions of applicants” as the program gets underway.

The Office of the Pardon Attorney, which will review the applications, currently has 32 authorized positions, including 19 attorneys. DOJ is seeking 18 additional employees, which would increase the staff to 50.

Everytown for Gun Safety has raised concerns that millions of applications could overwhelm such a small staff, leading to inadequate reviews or the use of artificial intelligence to help process cases.

Legal Changes

The Justice Department’s move came amid broader changes to how courts view the Second Amendment and gun ownership.

In the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court changed the test that courts use for Second Amendment challenges. Instead of weighing the government’s interest against gun rights, courts generally must determine whether a firearm restriction fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The decision has generated challenges to several federal gun prohibitions.

The Supreme Court ruled in June 2026 in United States v. Hemani that the government violated Hemani’s Second Amendment rights by prosecuting him for possessing a gun because he regularly used marijuana. The court rejected the government’s attempt to justify the prohibition by comparing modern drug users to people targeted by historical laws involving habitual drunkenness. The court stressed that its decision was narrow and did not invalidate other federal prohibitions on gun possession.

The Supreme Court upheld in the 2024 case United States v. Rahimi that the federal gun prohibition for a person subject to a qualifying domestic-violence restraining order. The court found a historical tradition of temporarily disarming people found to pose a credible threat of physical violence.

Frederick Vars, a University of Alabama law professor who has studied gun laws, told The Epoch Times the new regulations appear to create a meaningful way for people to regain their gun rights.

Vars said the new restoration process could make federal gun restrictions more likely to survive Second Amendment challenges. He pointed to United States v. Rahimi, in which the Supreme Court upheld a firearm restriction in part because it was temporary.

Because prohibited people may eventually apply to regain their rights, the new process makes nearly all federal firearm restrictions potentially temporary, Vars said. But he noted that the Supreme Court has not ruled that the Second Amendment requires such a restoration process or that lifetime prohibitions are necessarily unconstitutional.