Tag: 925(c)

New report: Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult

Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult, in potential violation of the Second Amendment, according to new report

 

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 5, 2025

Media Contact: Margaret Love

Margaretlove@pardonlaw.com

Loss of firearm rights after a felony conviction extends well beyond what is necessary to advance public safety objectives, according to a study released today by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center. The loss of rights is permanent in most states, and under federal law.

The study shows that each state operates under its own complex legal framework with overlapping federal requirements that create the possibility of further criminal jeopardy for inadvertent violations.  Only 13 states limit dispossession to violent crimes, and more than two-thirds of the states offer no route to firearm relief to residents convicted in another state or in federal court. Only 16 states provide a way to regain lost rights that is easily accessible to all state residents.

CCRC’s report, Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Suggestions for Reform, offers a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the differing ways states restrict and restore the right to possess a firearm, including relevant sections of statutory text to facilitate analysis and comparison.  This detailed information on state laws has not been made previously available, and is timely in light of impending changes to federal firearm restoration.

In almost every state, the process for regaining firearm rights is complex and difficult to navigate. Restoration of federal rights currently depends on restoration under state law, which means that restoration is effectively unavailable to many people, notably including those convicted in federal court whose only remedy is a presidential pardon. It also means that federal firearms restrictions are unevenly applied across the country.

Broad categorical dispossession laws like those in most states are more vulnerable to constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment when there is no individualized assessment of public safety risk, according to Margaret Love, one of the co-authors of the report. “There is no empirical research that would support restricting firearm rights for those convicted of non-violent offenses.”

Love said that “A close look at how firearm rights are restored in states across the country is important because of prospective changes to federal restoration procedures announced in March by the Department of Justice.” She pointed out that “The revival of an alternate way of avoiding federal restrictions means that federal rights will no longer depend on how states restore rights. At the same time, it will leave applicable state restrictions in place, and challenge states to consider whether any analogous state restrictions should remain after federal rights have been restored.”   

The change in federal firearm restoration procedures under consideration by the Department of Justice should encourage states to look carefully at restoration provisions in their own laws to determine whether more restrictive state provisions should outlive federal ones. States will also have to consider whether to offer opportunities for restoration of rights to all state residents rather than restricting them to people convicted in their own state courts.

Beth Johnson, the other co-author of the report, said that facilitating relief from felony dispossession has not been a focus of organizations seeking to remove criminal record restrictions on basic needs such as housing, employment, and access to social supports. It has also not been a familiar part of the advocacy program of organizations dedicated to challenging other types of restrictions on firearm possession.

“Gun violence has been too volatile an issue on the national scene to make support for restoring firearm rights to ‘convicted felons’ anything but a political third rail,” Johnson said. “Lost in the debate is what should be common ground: treating people fairly and supporting their reintegration includes restoring, with appropriate safeguards, their full access to housing, jobs, credit, and yes, also firearm rights.”

The report recommends that the federal government should make relief from federal felony dispossession under the proposed new restoration program broadly available to those who present no public safety risk.  It also recommends that states should narrow the scope of their felony dispossession laws, and provide a procedure for regaining firearm rights that incorporates a public safety determination and is easily accessible to all residents.

Both of the report’s authors have each spent decades representing people seeking to regain their firearm rights, Love in the Federal system through the presidential pardon process, and Johnson in the State of Illinois through the various relief mechanisms that state provides. “We are convinced that the time is right for a serious and open-minded effort to reform the law applicable to a collateral consequence of conviction that is in many ways unreasonable and unfair,” they said. “We are optimistic that the proposed changes to federal restoration will encourage states to reform their unduly restrictive laws.”

###

ABOUT CCRC

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center is a non-profit organization that researches laws and policies relating to restoration of rights and criminal record relief throughout the country, whose work makes it possible to see national patterns and emerging trends in efforts to mitigate the adverse impact of a criminal record. For more information visit https://ccresourcecenter.org/.  

 

Justice moves toward relieving record-based gun restrictions

On March 20th the U.S. Department of Justice published a rule it described as “a first step” toward reviving a long-dormant program for relieving federal firearms restrictions based on criminal record.  This rule could lead to a dramatic increase in opportunities to regain firearms rights by people convicted of felonies and misdemeanor domestic violence under state and federal law, and a reduction in collateral consequences that have long been criticized as having little or no public safety purpose.

The interim final rule entitled “Withdrawing the Attorney General’s Delegation of Authority” begins implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order 14206 of February 6, 2025 (“Protecting Second Amendment Rights”), which directed the Attorney General to study ways that the federal government could better reduce burdens on individuals’ Second Amendment. (The executive order did not mention firearms dispossession laws as among those burdens.)

According to the rule commentary, the Justice Department proposes to study how to help people with criminal records avoid the restrictions in federal firearms laws. It begins this process by withdrawing the Attorney General’s delegation to ATF to administer the restoration program under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), as well as “the moribund regulations governing individual applications to ATF.”  The rule commentary describes how ATF has been barred by Congress since 1992 from using any agency funds to administer the 925(c) restoration program. Without this statutory form of relief, people with federal convictions have had no way to regain their firearms rights except to obtain a presidential pardon, an elusive and unreliable form of relief in the best of times.

At the same time, the rule commentary promises to revive the 925(c) program, since the Attorney General has concluded that it “reflects an appropriate avenue to restore firearm rights to certain individuals who no longer warrant such disability based on a combination of the nature of their past criminal activity and their subsequent and current law-abiding behavior while screening out others for whom full restoration of firearm rights would not be appropriate.”

Withdrawing the delegation to ATF, as well as its dated implementing procedures, gives the Justice Department

a clean slate on which to build a new approach to implementing 18 U.S.C. 925(c) without the baggage of no-longer-necessary procedures— e.g., a requirement to file an application “in triplicate,” 27 CFR 478.144(b). With such a clean slate, the Department anticipates future actions, including rulemaking consistent with applicable law, to give full effect to 18 U.S.C. 925(c) while simultaneously ensuring that violent or dangerous individuals remain disabled from lawfully acquiring firearms.

The Justice Department’s intention to revive the 925(c) program was foreshadowed several weeks ago in connection with its interest in restoring firearm rights to Mel Gibson, an interest that may have played a part in the dismissal of the official in charge of the pardon program in Justice.

Reviving the 925(c) program could give people with federal convictions a statutory mechanism for regaining their firearms rights for the first time in 30 years, thus lightening the burdens placed on the president’s pardon power. Of course, unlike a pardon, statutory relief from federal firearms restrictions would not necessarily avoid state law restrictions independently placed on those with a criminal record. However, at least a dozen states have incorporated the 925(c) process into their restoration laws, so that a revived 925(c) program could help people with both state and federal convictions regain their firearms rights under both sets of laws.

The March 20 rule took immediate effect, but DOJ will accept comments on the measure until June 18. (The level of intense public interest is evidenced by the fact that, after less than a week, 4544 comments had already been posted at the Federal Register website, most of them favorable to the Justice Department’s plans to expand firearms relief.)

We look forward to seeing what next steps the Justice Department may take over the next months to implement a new 925(c) process, and otherwise implement the goals of the president’s executive order. A redelegation to ATF is suggested as a possibility, except that Congress would have to be persuaded to withdraw its restrictions on use of ATF funds. Delegating to some other part of the Justice Department is also a possibility, although in either case steps would have to be taken to manage the likely overwhelming volume of business, including from the thousands of federal offenders who have been waiting years to obtain a presidential pardon so they could once again go hunting. One possibility is simply to restore rights automatically to anyone convicted of nonviolent crimes after a suitable waiting period, and to consider those convicted of violent offenses on a case by case basis under specific objective standards.

Meanwhile, CCRC expects to publish next month a comprehensive analytical inventory and report on state firearms restrictions based on criminal history. We hope that this report will provide important legal and policy guideposts, both for the states and for the federal government, as they consider what additional steps might appropriately be taken to reduce record-based firearm consequences that are neither fair nor efficient.