The federal government’s promise to provide a pathway to restore firearm rights is no longer merely a commitment on paper. It is now a functioning process as the Department of Justice (DOJ) publicly listed the first individuals granted relief from federal firearm disabilities since finalizing its rule explaining the application procedures. This latest news is a significant step toward restoring Second Amendment rights to Americans who, after more than three decades, had been denied any meaningful federal avenue for relief.
DOJ finalized their new rule on August 20th as reported by NRA-ILA and effectively transferred administration of the restoration process from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to the Office of the Pardon Attorney for individualized review. The first nine individuals granted relief were formally published in the Federal Register last week marking a tangible return to the individualized restoration process Congress expressly provided for in federal statute.
This represents the beginning of the long-awaited process with DOJ rolling out the Federal Firearm Rights Restoration program in stages as the new dedicated DOJ website notes:
September 25, 2026: Application opens to invited candidates
November 4, 2026: Application opens to the public (the first 5,000 candidates can apply)
January 4, 2027: Application opens to the public (500 more candidates can apply and the application fee will begin)
As this firearm rights restoration process begins to take shape, undoubtedly it will be scrutinized and mischaracterized. It is important to reiterate that restoration is neither automatic nor a rubber stamp but a rigorous individualized review. The DOJ review of applicants will extend well beyond the formal designation of an applicant’s conviction. The Attorney General may examine all facts and seriousness of prior offenses, charges and plea agreements, conduct while incarcerated or under supervision, the amount of time that has passed since the completion of sentence, subsequent behavior, as well as information provided by law enforcement. The rule also creates strong presumptions against restoration for certain categories of applicants that include large categories of violent felonies.
There is limited information on the applicants receiving restoration. However, one recipient of note, Patrick Atkinson, had pled guilty to one count of federal mail fraud back in 1998. He never actually went to prison but received two years of probation along with six months of home confinement, plus fees and community service. His probation ended in 2000, and he then brought an as-applied Second Amendment challenge in court maintaining that with an otherwise clean record for 24 years, permanently disarming him for an old nonviolent felony was unconstitutional. While the court initially rejected Atkinson’s challenge, it was applying a pre-Bruen precedent and was subsequently remanded for the proper constitutional inquiry.
While Atkinson ultimately was not successful in the courts, there is an important connection between the constitutional arguments and the revived restoration process. The revived restoration process addresses the concerns in a different way by reinforcing that Congress had already created a statutory mechanism for restoration, allowing the Executive branch of government, and not federal judges conducting thousands of mini-trials, to determine whether a prohibited person can have their firearm rights restored.
Again, there will undoubtedly be criticism from those who believe the loss of Second Amendment rights should amount to a lifetime sentence. For some it, it does and will. For others, that criticism ignores both the rigor of the new process and a fundamental principle of justice. A lifetime deprivation of a constitutional right should not automatically follow every past mistake made. Our legal system has long recognized the possibility of redemption, and constitutional rights should be no different. When an individual has convincingly demonstrated that the justification for a lifetime firearm disability no longer exists, there should be a meaningful avenue for that person to reclaim their constitutional rights.
NRA-ILA has been reporting on and fought for many years to assist in the proper revival of the federal firearm rights restoration process, including submitting extensive comments on the rule. We continue to welcome these developments in its long-overdue return as a meaningful path for deserving Americans to regain their Second Amendment rights.
More Like This From Around The NRA
