DOJ Rolls Out New Process for Prohibited Persons to Have Their Gun Rights Restored

It took longer than anticipated, but the Justice Department has officially rolled out its new process for felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms to have their Second Amendment rights restored. 

The DOJ first announced its intent to provide an avenue for rights restoration last March, and in July published its proposed rule detailing the process that individuals would have to go through. The DOJ says it received more than 15,000 comments during the public comment period, with 91 percent of them generally supportive of the idea. 

Technically, there’s been a process to have federal rights restored for decades, but that avenue has been defunded by Congress since the 1990s. The DOJ determined that it had the authority to conduct the restoration rights process itself instead of the program being administered by the ATF, and the new pathway to rights restoration should be soon available. 

According to the DOJ’s new website, 30 days after the final rule is published, DOJ will “invite” candidates to apply. After another six weeks, up to 5,000 candidates can apply on their own before the window is briefly closed. 120 days after the rule is published the window will open again, and 500 more candidates can apply, with a new $30 application fee kicking in. 

The DOJ anticipates that 330,000 people will apply to have their rights restored in the first year that the process is in place, so presumably it will open up to all those who wish to apply at some point after the initial 120 day period. 

Some categories of criminal offenses will come with a presumptive denial, sometimes without an end date and others with a fixed period of a presumptive denial. A 922(g)(3) disqualification based on marijuana use does not come with any presumption of denial, for instance, but a disqualification for other drug use comes with a five-year presumption of denial.    

In a press release, Attorney General Todd Blanche declared, “the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” adding the rule, “establishes a rigorous, commonsense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration.”

As noted by the DOJ:

Under the final rule, restoration of firearm rights is neither automatic nor guaranteed. Each applicant must establish to the Attorney General’s satisfaction that the circumstances giving rise to the prohibition, together with the applicant’s record, reputation, and subsequent conduct, demonstrate that the applicant is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The Department will consider the facts and circumstances of each application, while maintaining strong presumptions against relief for individuals whose crimes, conduct, or status demonstrate heightened risks to public safety. Absent extraordinary circumstances, violent felons, registered sex offenders, illegal aliens, and other individuals who present an ongoing danger will remain presumptively ineligible for relief.  Any relief granted under the rule removes only applicable federal firearms disabilities and does not override independent restrictions imposed by state law.

The final rule doesn’t address every concern raised by Second Amendment groups. There is no deadline for DOJ to act on applications, for instance, which could lead future anti-gun administrations to just sit on each and every rights restoration request and not act on any of them. I’ve only had a chance to skim through the final rule and the DOJ’s response to submitted comments, so there may be other portions of the rule that Second Amendment advocates take issue with as well. 

The rule may not be perfect from a 2A standpoint, but the fact that it exists at all is meaningful progress and another example of the Trump administration and the DOJ treating the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamentally important right. Of course we can and do want more, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the historically positive change that the DOJ is implementing. 

I know several people who’ve lost the ability to keep and bear arms through non-violent offenses, and the thought of them being able to take their kids hunting, protect their family with a firearm, and just enjoy an afternoon at the range with friends and family makes me happy. One of the kindest, most generous, and simply good men I know can’t own a gun because of some stupid decisions he made in his early 20s. He admits that going to prison almost 20 years ago was probably the best thing that could have happened to him, and he’s now a father and husband who’s run his own successful business and is always eager to help those in need. Prohibiting him from owning a firearm doesn’t help anyone, and it certainly doesn’t make his community any safer. 

It’s men and women like my friend who stand to benefit the most from the DOJ’s new rule. I know many of us believe that once a prison sentence has been served, all of our rights should be restored automatically. I don’t disagree, at least in theory, but I also know that isn’t going to be the legal reality anytime soon. Is this new rule the next best thing? It has the potential to be, and it’s definitely better than the status quo. 

Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.