Federal Firearm Restoration Lawyers: Restoring Federal Firearm Rights – A New Life for 18 U.S.C. § 925(c)

For over three decades, individuals who lost their firearm rights under federal law had virtually no way to get them back. Federal law makes it illegal for certain people – such as those with felony convictions – to possess or receive guns, often for life. In theory, a provision of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), allows such “prohibited persons” to apply to have their gun rights restored. In practice, that avenue was shut down by Congress in 1992 and has remained closed ever since. Now, in 2025, that long-dormant relief process is showing signs of revival. In this comprehensive guide, we explain how 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) works, why it was dormant for decades, recent efforts to revive it, and how federal firearm restoration lawyers can help you navigate this complex process to regain your Second Amendment rights.

What Is 18 U.S.C. § 925(c)? The Federal Firearm Disability Relief Provision

Under federal law (primarily 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), many categories of people are prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms. These “federal firearms disabilities” apply to anyone convicted of a felony (any crime punishable by more than a year in prison), as well as people with certain misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, those adjudicated as mentally ill or committed to mental institutions, unlawful drug users, fugitives, and several other disqualified categories. For most affected individuals, the ban is lifelong – meaning even decades after a conviction or other disqualifying event, they remain unable to legally own a gun under federal law.

Recognizing that lifetime bans might not always be appropriate, Congress built a relief mechanism into the Gun Control Act of 1968. This is found in 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). Under this provision, a person subject to a federal firearm disability may apply to the Attorney General for restoration of their firearms rights. The law authorizes the Attorney General to grant relief if an investigation shows “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 plain terms, the applicant has to convince authorities that they are responsible and rehabilitated enough that restoring their gun rights won’t endanger anyone.

From 1968 through the late 1980s, this federal relief process was actively used. The Attorney General had delegated the responsibility for handling these applications to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Individuals who were federally prohibited (usually due to prior convictions) could submit a detailed application to ATF, which would then investigate their background, circumstances of the disability, and current reputation. ATF agents would interview the applicant, conduct background checks, and often gather input from the applicant’s community and law enforcement. Based on that, ATF would make a recommendation to either approve or deny relief.

Thousands of people sought relief in those years, and many had their rights restored. For example, ATF records indicate that between 1981 and 1991, around 13,000 applications were processed. Of those, roughly 40% were approved. The types of individuals granted relief ranged from those with old non-violent felony convictions (like minor theft or regulatory offenses) to others whose situations suggested they had turned their lives around. Those whose applications were denied typically had more serious criminal histories or other red flags indicating a risk. Importantly, even when federal relief was granted, it did not wipe away state law prohibitions – applicants also needed to be eligible under their state’s laws to possess firearms.

If an application for relief was denied, § 925(c) allows the applicant to seek judicial review in federal court. A person could file a petition in U.S. district court to review a denial, and the court could, in its discretion, take new evidence and decide whether the Attorney General (through ATF) had erred. This judicial review mechanism underscored that relief was meant to be a meaningful possibility, not a blind alley. However, as explained below, this review provision became essentially irrelevant once the program was halted.

Congress Halts the Program in 1992

Despite the existence of § 925(c), since 1992 no individual has been able to actually get their gun rights restored through this federal process. What happened in 1992 was a change in funding that effectively suspended the program. Members of Congress grew concerned that ATF was spending too much time and resources on processing these relief applications instead of focusing on core law enforcement duties. There was also political pressure from gun-control advocates who argued that letting felons regain firearms posed a threat to public safety.

In 1992, Congress added a rider (a proviso) to ATF’s annual appropriations (the federal budget for the agency) with a very direct instruction: “None of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c).” In other words, Congress forbid ATF from using any money to process any person’s petition to restore gun rights. This provision first appeared in the ATF budget for Fiscal Year 1993 (passed in late 1992), and it was prompted by committee findings that the relief investigations were consuming about “40 man-years” of effort annually. Some legislators pointed out that deciding who is too dangerous to own a gun is a “very difficult and subjective task,” and they noted claims that “too many felons whose gun ownership rights were restored went on to commit crimes with firearms.” Instead of having ATF spend time evaluating these applications, Congress wanted the agency to “return to its core function” of investigating gun crimes and violations. In fact, lawmakers suggested the personnel handling relief requests should be reassigned to programs like targeting armed career criminals.

From 1992 onward, this budget rider blocking § 925(c) relief has been renewed every single year in federal law. Year after year, Congress included the same prohibition in the appropriations bills funding ATF (which eventually became part of the Department of Justice budget after 2003). The result was that ATF, by law, could not expend any staff time or resources to even consider an application for relief. Any letters or forms sent in by hopeful applicants were simply returned unprocessed.

The effect on individuals has been severe. For over 30 years, thousands of Americans with old convictions or other federal prohibitions had no recourse through § 925(c). If you were a felon who had turned your life around and wanted your Second Amendment rights back, the existence of § 925(c) in the law was only a cruel mirage – it offered hope on paper, but in reality, there was no office that would hear your plea. The ATF even made it clear on its website and in responses to inquiries: because of the ongoing funding restriction, no relief applications from individuals could be entertained.

Because ATF was barred from acting, some people tried turning to the courts. They pointed to the provision allowing judicial review of a denial of relief, arguing that ATF’s failure to act was constructively a denial that a court should review. These efforts failed. Notably, in United States v. Bean (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that if ATF is prevented from acting on an application at all, that “inaction” is not the same as a denial, and therefore courts have no authority to step in and grant relief. In short, no action by ATF meant no relief and no judicial intervention. The Supreme Court’s decision confirmed that until Congress removed the funding block, the door to § 925(c) was effectively locked shut.

The only theoretical avenue left for most individuals was a Presidential pardon (or, for state offenders, a pardon from the governor or other state authority). A full pardon can restore a person’s civil rights, including gun ownership rights, and is recognized under federal law as an exception to the firearm prohibition. However, pardons are exceedingly rare. Very few individuals, especially those with decades-old convictions, could realistically hope for a pardon. Many states have their own processes for restoring gun rights (for example, through expungement or restoration of civil rights), but even those can be complicated and often do not remove the federal disability unless the state action is comprehensive. In many cases, someone could have their rights back under state law, but still be barred by federal law. This disconnect left many people in a frustrating Catch-22.

One small exception in the federal funding ban was for corporate entities. Congress eventually allowed that ATF could use funds to investigate relief applications submitted by corporations (for instance, a company that had been barred from dealing in firearms due to a legal issue could apply for relief). However, such applications have been extremely rare – none have been filed in recent years – and this exception did nothing for individual citizens seeking to restore their personal rights.

The Trump Administration’s Revival of the Relief Process

After decades of inaction, momentum began building to revive the federal relief program. Legal scholars and Second Amendment advocates pointed out that § 925(c) remained law on the books – Congress never repealed it – and that the only thing preventing its use was an appropriations rider. Meanwhile, the landscape of gun rights jurisprudence started shifting. In 2022, the Supreme Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen set a new standard for evaluating gun laws under the Second Amendment, leading many to question whether a lifetime ban with no possibility of relief could survive constitutional scrutiny. Several lower courts, in the wake of Bruen, ruled that applying the felon-in-possession ban to certain non-violent individuals was unconstitutional. The pressure was mounting to show that the government had some mechanism to distinguish between dangerous criminals and those who are safe and responsible.

Within the Department of Justice (DOJ), officials began examining whether there was a way around the congressional roadblock short of waiting for Congress to act. The key insight was that the Attorney General is not obligated to keep § 925(c) authority within ATF. The law says the Attorney General decides relief applications – and historically the AG had delegated that job to ATF in the regulations. But a delegation is reversible. If moving the function out of ATF could avoid the specific funding restriction (which targeted ATF’s budget), then perhaps another unit of DOJ could handle the task.

Under President Donald Trump’s administration, DOJ leaders took up this idea. By late 2024 and into 2025 – as President Trump pursued policies supporting gun rights – the Department quietly prepared to shift the relief application process away from ATF. Reports emerged that the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA) was involved in developing a new approach. This made sense: OPA already reviews applications for clemency (including pardons) and has experience evaluating individuals’ backgrounds, making it a logical choice to take on firearm disability relief petitions. Indeed, it appears that a DOJ working group was formed to start identifying cases for potential rights restoration. In one reported instance, the DOJ Pardon Attorney at the time (Elizabeth Oyer) was asked to consider restoring firearm rights to a particular high-profile individual; after objecting, she was removed from her position – an early sign of internal friction as the Administration pushed forward with the new policy.

The formal public step came in early 2025. On February 6, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14206, “Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” This order directed the Attorney General to review all relevant policies and “assess any ongoing infringements” of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. It signaled the Administration’s view that perhaps the long-standing freeze on § 925(c) relief was an unnecessary infringement, especially for people who are no danger to society.

Following this directive, Attorney General Pam Bondi took action to resurrect the § 925(c) process. On March 20, 2025, the Department of Justice published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register (90 Fed. Reg. 13080) with the unassuming title “Withdrawing the Attorney General’s Delegation of Authority.” Despite its bland name, this rule represented a historic shift: it officially removed ATF’s authority to adjudicate § 925(c) applications and struck the regulations (formerly 27 C.F.R. § 478.144) that had outlined ATF’s petition process. In effect, Attorney General Bondi “undelegeted” the relief program from ATF, reclaiming it under her direct authority. By doing so, she aimed to bypass the funding barrier that Congress had imposed on ATF for years.

In the rule’s preamble, DOJ acknowledged the unusual, even confusing, state of affairs: the law promised a relief mechanism, yet ATF had been unable to act on it since 1992. The Department pointed out that this situation had taken on greater significance in light of recent Second Amendment case law. The interim rule made clear that § 925(c) remains a valid and important avenue to restore rights for certain deserving individuals – those who no longer pose a threat – while emphasizing that others (violent or dangerous felons) would continue to be prohibited. By withdrawing the delegation to ATF and wiping away the old “moribund” regulations (which, for example, still required forms to be filed in triplicate by mail), DOJ created a clean slate to build a new, functional relief process.

It’s important to note that this move did not immediately restart the relief program for everyone the next day. Rather, it was a necessary first step to enable the program to function again. ATF is now definitively out of the loop – which means the appropriations rider singling out ATF no longer prevents action. However, DOJ did not simultaneously announce a new office or procedure for individuals to submit their applications. The interim rule was effective immediately, but it also opened a public comment period (through June 18, 2025) to gather input on how the program should move forward. In the meantime, individuals keen to seek relief have been left in a bit of limbo, as discussed below.

The Department of Justice’s Current Position and Next Steps

With the interim rule in place, the DOJ’s official stance is that it fully intends to revive and implement the federal firearm rights restoration process – but carefully and in coordination with Congress. The Department has affirmed several key points in the rule and subsequent statements:

• Support for a Relief Mechanism: DOJ now openly recognizes that 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) serves an important purpose. The Department stated that this provision is an “appropriate avenue” to restore firearm rights to individuals who “no longer warrant” being banned, due to the nature of their past offense and their demonstrated law-abiding behavior since. In other words, DOJ sees merit in distinguishing between people who made mistakes long ago and have rehabilitated, versus those whose record indicates they remain dangerous. This is a significant policy position, aligning the federal government more closely with the idea of second chances in this context.

• Commitment to Public Safety: At the same time, DOJ emphasizes that the goal is not to arm dangerous criminals. Both the Executive Order and the DOJ rule stress that no constitutional right is unlimited and that laws barring violent or dangerous individuals from having guns are vital and will be upheld. Any relief process will be designed to screen out individuals who pose a genuine risk. In practice, this likely means strict criteria and thorough investigations will be part of the new program, to ensure that only truly rehabilitated, responsible individuals regain rights, and those with serious or recent offenses will remain prohibited.

• Need for Congressional Action: Crucially, the Department has bowed to reality regarding the funding issue. In the interim final rule, DOJ “respects Congress’s appropriations prerogatives” and explicitly notes that it plans to work with Congress to modify or rescind the funding rider that started this whole problem. The Attorney General will be providing legislative proposals as part of the review under the Executive Order. Simply put, DOJ is not trying to defy Congress; it is asking Congress to remove the roadblock. This cooperative approach is likely meant to reassure legislators that DOJ isn’t ignoring the law – instead, it is seeking their help to change it. Until Congress acts (for example, by omitting the rider in a future budget or explicitly funding the new process), the scope of the program may remain limited. Without funding, any relief program could be hamstrung. DOJ can shuffle some tasks internally for now (as by using existing staff like the Pardon Attorney’s office), but a permanent solution will require Congress to allow resources for this purpose.

• Future Rulemaking and Program Design: The interim rule is just the beginning. DOJ indicated that it anticipates further rulemaking to flesh out how § 925(c) relief will be administered going forward. By wiping the slate clean of outdated ATF rules, the Department can write modern regulations that take advantage of efficiencies (possibly online applications, clearer standards, etc.). One reason Congress defunded the old program was the perceived “drain on resources” and cumbersome process. DOJ is examining ways to make the new process less burdensome and more efficient so it doesn’t repeat the mistakes of the past. For example, the old method might have required a lot of field investigation work; a new method might streamline that or set higher initial eligibility filters to reduce frivolous petitions. We won’t know the exact contours until DOJ drafts the new rules, but they have signaled an intention to “give full effect” to the relief law while making sure it doesn’t become an administrative quagmire or a loophole for dangerous people.

• Interim Reality: As of now (mid-2025), ATF is officially out of the picture. If you call ATF about restoring your rights, they will point to the DOJ’s interim rule and say ATF has no authority to process such applications anymore. The Department of Justice has not yet announced a new application procedure under the Attorney General’s authority. The situation is that § 925(c) technically provides a remedy, but there’s a gap as the new system is being set up. DOJ’s guidance is essentially, “stay tuned – we are working on it.” They have noted publicly that further actions are coming and that they are treating this as a priority in line with the President’s executive order.

In summary, the DOJ under the Trump administration is now on record supporting the revival of federal gun rights restoration for appropriate candidates, acknowledging that the decades-old freeze should end. However, they are proceeding in a measured way: first legally clearing the path by removing ATF, next seeking support from Congress and designing a viable program, and then (presumably) opening the doors for applications once the framework and funding are in place.

Guidance for Individuals Seeking Relief of Federal Firearms Disabilities

For individuals who are eager to restore their Second Amendment rights under federal law, the recent developments are a reason for optimism – but also caution. Here’s what prospective applicants should know:

• As of Today, Applications Are in Limbo: With ATF no longer accepting petitions and DOJ still establishing its new process, there is currently no active office or form to file for § 925(c) relief. Simply put, you cannot yet submit a request and have it processed to completion. Any applications sent to ATF will be returned, and DOJ has not published an alternative submission procedure (as of now). This will likely change once DOJ finalizes new regulations or interim guidance. Individuals should keep an eye on official DOJ announcements or the Federal Register for new rules in the coming months.

• Start Preparing Your Case: Even though you can’t apply quite yet, if you plan to seek relief, use this time wisely. Preparation is key. The standard for relief – proving you are not likely to be dangerous and that restoring your rights is in the public interest – is a high bar. You should begin gathering documentation and evidence that demonstrate your rehabilitation and responsible conduct. This may include:

  • Personal records: Obtain certified copies of your criminal case records, proof that you completed all sentencing requirements, and any evidence that your civil rights (like voting or jury service) were restored by your state, if applicable.

  • Time since the disqualifying event: Note how many years (or decades) have passed since your conviction or other prohibiting event. Generally, the longer you have stayed out of trouble, the stronger your case.

  • Character references: Consider who can vouch for you. Letters or statements from employers, community leaders, clergy, or long-time acquaintances attesting to your good character can be very helpful. If you have maintained a steady job, volunteered, or otherwise contributed positively to your community, gather evidence of that.

  • Behavioral evidence: If the prohibition was due to mental health issues or substance abuse in the past, be prepared to show documentation of treatment, recovery, or management of those issues (for example, completion of a rehabilitation program, or a letter from a counselor).

  • No new violations: It almost goes without saying, but you must have a clean record since the disqualifying incident. Any new criminal charges or even multiple serious traffic offenses could undermine your application. If you’re currently on probation or parole, you will need to wait until you are fully off supervision and have ideally spent some time as a law-abiding, free citizen.

• Understand Your State Law Status: Federal relief will not automatically make it legal for you to have a gun under state law. Firearm laws vary by state. Some states also ban felons (or other prohibited persons) from possessing firearms under state statutes, and not all states have a mechanism to restore gun rights. Before you seek federal relief, you’ll want to ensure that you either already have relief at the state level or that you seek it in parallel. For example, if your conviction was for a state crime, some states restore firearm rights after a certain period or through application to a court, while others require a gubernatorial pardon. If your state would still consider you a prohibited person, you could regain your federal right but still risk state prosecution if you obtained a gun. Coordinating state and federal relief is important – this is a key area where a knowledgeable attorney can advise you.

• Pardon or Expungement as an Alternative: Given the uncertainty of how quickly the new federal process will ramp up, you might explore whether you are eligible for any other relief. If you were convicted of a federal offense, a Presidential pardon is one option – though difficult to obtain, some individuals do apply through the Office of the Pardon Attorney for clemency. For a state offense, check if your state offers expungement, record sealing, firearm rights restoration, or a pardon process. Successfully getting relief at the state level can, in some cases, remove the federal prohibition as well (under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), certain convictions that are expunged or for which civil rights have been restored are not counted for the federal gun ban, provided the relief did not expressly withhold firearm rights). This area can be legally complex, so again, consulting an attorney is advisable.

• Patience and Updates: Recognize that even once the program officially reopens, it will likely involve wait times and thorough reviews. In the past, relief investigations could take months to over a year. With three decades of pent-up demand, the volume of applications might be high. Stay informed by following DOJ press releases or subscribing to updates from reputable Second Amendment advocacy groups or legal bulletins. Also, be prepared for the possibility that your application, once submitted, may not be decided immediately – and not every application will be granted.

• No Self-Help: Until you have officially obtained relief or a pardon, do not attempt to acquire or possess firearms or ammunition. The federal prohibition remains fully in effect on you until the moment it is lifted by the proper authority. Some individuals might feel that since the law is in flux, they can take liberties – that is a serious mistake. The penalties for a prohibited person possessing a firearm are severe (it’s a federal felony that can carry up to 10 years in prison). There is no “grace period” or automatic interim relief just because the DOJ is working on changes. Stay on the right side of the law throughout this process so that when the opportunity for relief arrives, you will be eligible and in a strong position to make your case.

Supporters and Critics: The Debate Over Restoring Gun Rights

Unsurprisingly, the prospect of reviving § 925(c) has drawn both enthusiastic support and staunch criticism. Understanding both perspectives is important as the policy moves forward:

Supporters’ View – Second Chances and Constitutional Rights: Advocates of restoring the relief process argue that a lifetime blanket ban on firearms for all felons (and others) is overly broad and often unjust. They point out that not all crimes are equal – many people have old, non-violent convictions or minor offenses from their youth and have lived decades as upstanding citizens. To forever deny them a fundamental right, they contend, is contrary to American principles of fairness. Supporters often say, “If someone is safe enough to be living in society, they should be trusted with their rights.” In their view, the government should focus on truly dangerous individuals, not cast a wide net that ensnares people who made one mistake.

Empirical evidence is cited to bolster the case. During the years when ATF did grant relief, relatively few recipients reoffended. A study by the Violence Policy Center (a gun control group) in the early 1990s – often referenced by critics – found that out of roughly 1,800 individuals who got relief in a five-year period, about 47 were later re-arrested for some type of offense. However, upon closer look, most of those re-arrests were for non-violent or unrelated issues (like DUI or minor infractions), and only a handful (around 3 or 4 cases) involved any hint of violent behavior. Proponents argue this demonstrates that a well-run relief program can successfully filter out those likely to be dangerous. In fact, it may suggest that those granted relief were less likely to commit violent crimes than the average person with a criminal record who doesn’t get relief.

Supporters also invoke the changing legal landscape. After the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, several courts have struck down the application of gun bans in cases involving non-violent offenders, saying there’s no historical tradition in America of disarming people permanently for crimes unrelated to violence. Even some scholars who favor gun regulation have suggested that providing an “off-ramp” – a way for individuals to regain rights after demonstrating rehabilitation – could strengthen the overall system and help it withstand constitutional scrutiny. They argue that if the government can show that prohibited status isn’t necessarily permanent and hopeless for everyone, laws like the felon-in-possession ban might be seen as more narrowly tailored.

Finally, advocates emphasize that § 925(c) is no amnesty or free pass. It is a case-by-case evaluation. They believe the criteria ensure that only those who can prove themselves responsible will benefit. In fact, a similar standard is already used in another context: federal law provides for mental health-based prohibitions to be removed if a state grants relief after finding the person is not dangerous. Those state-run programs (funded by the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007) have been in effect for years, allowing thousands of people who were involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally ill to regain gun rights after recovery – and there has not been evidence of resulting harm. Supporters see this as a parallel demonstrating that relief can be granted without endangering public safety.

Critics’ View – Public Safety and Resource Concerns: On the other side, critics of restoring gun rights to felons and others maintain that the risks outweigh the rewards. They argue that certain people simply cannot be trusted with firearms, and that the lifetime ban is there for a good reason. From this perspective, a felony conviction (even if not overtly violent) indicates a willingness to break serious laws, and thus a person’s gun ownership poses a potential danger. Gun violence prevention organizations point to the fact that even a few mistakes in the relief process could have tragic outcomes – for instance, if someone with a history of criminal behavior is deemed “reformed,” gets their guns back, and then uses them to commit a violent act, the consequences could be dire. They often cite examples from before 1992 where individuals who got relief later misused firearms as justification for why the program should not resume.

Critics also highlight what Congress saw in 1992: the task is difficult and subjective. Determining if someone is truly reformed or “safe” is not an exact science. It puts a heavy burden on officials to effectively predict future behavior – a process prone to error. Additionally, they worry that a flood of applications could divert law enforcement resources. The original defunding argument was that ATF needed to focus on catching criminals, not reviewing pleas from ex-criminals. That concern could resurface if a small DOJ office becomes overwhelmed by tens of thousands of petitions, potentially slowing down other critical work or stretching budgets thin.

There is also a philosophical divide. Some opponents believe that certain offenses (especially serious felonies) should carry permanent consequences, including the loss of gun rights. In their view, that is part of the punishment and a means of protecting society. They contend that those who have shown disregard for the law in major ways have forfeited the privilege of firearms ownership, and that restoring it is an unnecessary risk. This camp is likely to be especially critical if high-profile or controversial figures (for example, political allies of an administration or celebrities with checkered pasts) are perceived to be getting special treatment through the relief process.

In the current development, gun control advocacy groups are expected to oppose the DOJ’s move. We may see public comments filed by organizations like Brady United or Giffords Law Center arguing against restarting the program. They might even lobby Congress to keep the funding prohibition in place, framing the issue as one of safety and preventing gun violence. It’s worth noting that this debate is unfolding at a time when the country is deeply divided on gun policy, so the conversation around § 925(c) could become part of the larger national dialogue on crime and the Second Amendment.

Finding Common Ground?: Interestingly, there is a scenario in which even some skeptics might find a relief process acceptable: if it’s extremely rigorous and paired with narrower laws. For instance, if Congress were to tighten the categories of prohibited persons to focus on truly dangerous individuals (rather than anyone with any felony), a relief valve could be seen as a safety net for edge cases. Likewise, if the DOJ process proves to be very strict – denying applicants who have any hint of risk – critics may be less alarmed, though that would also mean fewer people actually succeed in getting relief. Much will depend on implementation and oversight.

In summary, supporters view the revival of § 925(c) as a long overdue correction that restores rights to those who deserve them, while critics view it as a potentially dangerous step that could arm the wrong people. The DOJ will have to navigate these views carefully as it stands up the new program, to ensure that it gains public trust and accomplishes its goals.

Practical Considerations for Federal Firearm Restoration Attorneys and Clients Moving Forward

Given the evolving situation, federal firearm restoration attorneys and their clients who are interested in pursuing relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) should approach the matter strategically. Here are some practical considerations for legal practitioners and individuals preparing for this process:

1. Stay Informed on Legal Developments: This area of law is in flux. Attorneys should continuously monitor updates from the Department of Justice, including any new regulations or guidance on how to apply for relief. Key sources of information will be the Federal Register (for rulemaking notices), official DOJ press releases, and guidance on the ATF or DOJ websites. The interim final rule is not the end – a final rule or additional procedures will likely be announced after the comment period. Being aware of when the application process officially opens and what the requirements will be is crucial. Consider joining professional networks or forums focused on Second Amendment law or subscribing to newsletters from firearms law research centers to get timely updates. Clients will be relying on their attorneys to know the latest status.

2. Assess Eligibility and Risks: Not every prohibited individual will be a viable candidate for relief. Federal firearm restoration attorneys should vet their client’s background thoroughly before pursuing an application. Important questions include:

• What was the underlying conviction or reason for prohibition? Was it a violent crime, or something minor? The nature of the offense will heavily influence the chance of success.

• How long has it been since the disqualifying event, and what has the client done since? A client with a 20-year-old non-violent felony who has had no further issues is in a much stronger position than someone who, say, finished a sentence two years ago or has other infractions.

• Does the client have any other disqualifications (e.g., multiple convictions, a history of mental health adjudications, substance abuse issues, etc.)? Multiple or overlapping prohibitions might complicate the application.

• Did the client regain any civil rights through state law? For instance, if a state restored their voting and civil rights but withheld gun rights, that’s notable. Or if the client is in a state that will still ban them from guns even if federal relief is granted, that needs to be addressed (possibly by concurrently seeking state relief).

• Importantly: Is the client truly committed to safe and lawful behavior going forward? Federal firearm restoration attorneys should make sure clients understand that any misstep (like a new arrest) could derail not only their application but also subject them to prosecution.

3. Gather Supporting Documentation: As mentioned earlier, a well-prepared application will require evidence. Federal firearm restoration attorneys should start compiling a dossier for the client that includes:

• The judgment and conviction records for any offenses.

• Records of completion of sentence, including probation/parole discharge documents.

• If available, a certificate of rehabilitation or state orders restoring rights.

• Character reference letters. It often carries more weight if these come from people like employers, former supervisors, law enforcement officers who know the client, or community leaders. Lawyers can help clients identify potential letter writers and guide those references on the points to emphasize (e.g., the client’s honesty, responsibility, change in character, community involvement).

• Any evidence of accolades or achievements (educational certificates, awards, military service record if applicable with honorable discharge, etc.) that paint the client as a constructive member of society.

• A personal statement from the client. This isn’t always formally required, but it can be very powerful. Attorneys should work with their clients to write a sincere narrative of their life change: acknowledging the past wrongdoing, expressing remorse, and detailing the positive steps they’ve taken to reform. A tone of accountability and growth is key here.

4. Mind the Procedure (When Announced): Once DOJ announces how to apply, pay close attention to the details. There may be a specific form, a required format for submission, or an online portal. There could also be an application fee (historically, ATF applications had a fee, so it’s possible a new process might as well). Deadlines or windows for submission might be in place if the volume is high. Also note any appeal procedures: while § 925(c) allows judicial review of denials, DOJ might create an internal review process or require exhaustion of certain steps before court. Understanding the workflow (e.g., initial review by a DOJ component, possible interview of the applicant, recommendation to the AG, etc.) will help manage expectations and prepare accordingly.

5. Coordinate with State Counsel if Necessary: If your ability to possess guns under state law is unclear, you may need to consult with or bring in an attorney knowledgeable in that state’s law. For example, some states automatically bar gun ownership for felons unless they receive a pardon. Others restore rights after a certain period or allow court petitions. Ensure that obtaining federal relief won’t lead you into a trap of violating state law. It may be prudent to simultaneously seek a state restoration if available, so that by the time federal relief is granted, the client is clear on all fronts. Conversely, if you already had state-level restoration (except for guns), that fact could bolster your federal case by showing that authorities have deemed you worthy of regaining rights (just not firearms, which was beyond state power to grant in a federal sense).

6. Manage Expectations and Ethical Considerations: Attorneys should communicate honestly with clients that this is a new and developing process. Outcomes are uncertain. It’s possible that even a well-qualified applicant might face a long wait or could be denied for reasons that aren’t immediately clear (especially as the standards get worked out).  Additionally, be mindful of ethical issues: ensure that any application submitted is truthful and complete. Do not omit relevant information about your history, even if it’s unfavorable – doing so could not only doom the application but also expose you to accusations of making false statements to the government. It’s better to confront negative facts head-on with an explanation of mitigating circumstances than to hide them.

7. Consider Judicial Review if Denied: If the Attorney General formally denies your application in the future, remember that judicial review in federal court is available by statute. This would involve filing a petition in the local U.S. District Court. The court can take new evidence and essentially reassess the case. However, keep in mind courts may show deference to the DOJ’s decision unless there’s a strong showing that it was mishandled. Also, litigation is expensive and slow. It may not be practical except for perhaps exceptional cases or systemic issues. Your federal firearms restoration lawyer can advise you on this option and gauge whether it’s worth pursuing (for instance, if the DOJ denial was based on a legal error or an abuse of discretion).

In sum, federal firearm restoration lawyers serve as guides and advocates through a process that is technical and currently in flux. They increase your chance of success by making sure every requirement is met, every favorable fact is highlighted, and every legal avenue is pursued. Given the value of Second Amendment rights and the complexity of federal firearms law, having a dedicated attorney is the safest way to approach a rights restoration effort.

Conclusion

After decades of inertia, the federal government is finally moving to give deserving individuals a chance to reclaim their firearms rights under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The revival of this relief program – once fully implemented – could open the door for thousands of Americans who have turned their lives around to once again legally hunt, target shoot, or defend their homes. The journey to restoration, however, is not easy: the rules are evolving, the standards are high, and the review process will be thorough. Federal firearm restoration lawyers can be your strongest asset in this journey. They bring clarity to confusion, ensuring that you understand your rights and options under the law. They will help you prepare the best possible case to show that you are not a danger to public safety and that restoring your Second Amendment rights is justified.

If you have a past conviction that has cost you your firearm rights, it’s worthwhile to consult with a legal professional who specializes in federal gun rights restoration. Knowledgeable federal firearm restoration lawyers will evaluate your case honestly and guide you on the path forward – whether that means gathering documents for a 925(c) application, seeking a pardon, or exploring state relief that could clear the way federally. With the law changing in real time, having an attorney by your side ensures you won’t miss any opportunities. The restoration of rights is about proving redemption and responsibility. With experienced legal help, you can navigate the process confidently and stand the best chance of success in restoring your federal firearm rights under §925(c), reclaiming a fundamental freedom that may once again be within reach.

Book your free consultation today.