August 31, 2026
Gun Talk Staff
The right to keep and bear arms is one of the few constitutional rights that can be permanently lost through a criminal conviction. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), nine categories of prohibited persons are barred from possessing, receiving, shipping, or transporting any firearm or ammunition. Felony conviction is the most common path into § 922(g) status, and the number of Americans affected is significant: the DOJ estimates approximately 30 million Americans have lost their federal firearm rights under existing law.
Congress recognized in 1968 that a permanent, lifetime bar was not always appropriate. The Gun Control Act included § 925(c) as a safety valve: a mechanism by which a prohibited person could apply to the Attorney General for restoration of rights, demonstrating that their circumstances, record, and subsequent conduct showed they were not likely to be dangerous and that relief would not be contrary to the public interest. For the first two decades of the GCA, this process worked — imperfectly and unevenly, but it worked.
Then in 1992, Congress attached a rider to the ATF's appropriations bill prohibiting the bureau from spending any funds to investigate or act upon § 925(c) applications. That rider has been renewed every year since. The practical effect was immediate and lasting: with no agency funded to process them, applications couldn't be acted upon. The Supreme Court confirmed in United States v. Bean (2002) that courts had no jurisdiction to grant restoration absent an actual denial by the executive agency — and since ATF was barred from denying applications, courts couldn't act either. The pathway was legally open but procedurally sealed.
Attorney General Blanche's new rule breaks the seal. By moving the § 925(c) process from ATF to the DOJ itself — specifically to the Office of the Pardon Attorney — the rule routes around the appropriations restriction that has blocked applications for 34 years. Applications will now be processed by an office with a funding mandate and a staffed review process.
“Over the past months, we have worked at the direction of Attorney General Todd Blanche to build a program to give a pathway for restoration for the 30 million Americans who have lost their Second Amendment rights. We are proud to serve and defend our great Second Amendment.” — DOJ Pardon Attorney Edward Martin, August 28, 2026
The rule creates 28 C.F.R. Part 107 and moves the § 925(c) restoration function from ATF to the DOJ's Office of the Pardon Attorney. That office already administers presidential pardon and clemency processes. The Pardon Attorney's office is funded by DOJ appropriations, not ATF appropriations — which is how the rule sidesteps the congressional rider that shut down ATF's § 925(c) process in 1992.
Restoration 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 rule establishes detailed presumptions for the DOJ's review. The individualized nature of the standard means that two people convicted of the same offense may receive different outcomes based on their subsequent records, circumstances, and the specific facts of their cases.
The rule is explicit about who is unlikely to receive relief regardless of application:
These categories are presumptive, not absolute — the rule reserves “extraordinary circumstances” as a narrow exception. But the DOJ has been clear that the rule is not a pathway for violent criminals or predators to rearm. The intended beneficiaries are people with old, nonviolent convictions who have demonstrated through decades of law-abiding conduct that the disability no longer serves a public safety function.
This is critical to understand: a successful § 925(c) application removes only federal firearm disabilities. It does not automatically restore rights under state law. A person who obtains federal restoration and lives in a state that independently bans them from possessing firearms — based on that state's own statutes — is still prohibited under state law regardless of what the DOJ grants. Federal and state firearm prohibitions are separate legal systems. Restoration from one does not guarantee restoration from the other.
In practical terms: someone in a constitutional-carry, generally gun-friendly state with a decades-old nonviolent federal felony who receives § 925(c) relief may be able to legally purchase and possess firearms under both federal and state law after restoration. Someone in California or New York with an independent state prohibition faces a more complicated path even after federal restoration.
Understanding the significance of this rule requires understanding why § 925(c) stopped working in 1992.
Before 1992, the ATF administered the § 925(c) process. Applications were submitted to ATF, which investigated the applicant, reviewed their record, and made a recommendation to the Attorney General. The process was slow, inconsistent, and resource-intensive — ATF's own assessments described it as prone to ad hoc determinations. But it worked. Relief was granted to applicants who demonstrated rehabilitation.
In 1992, congressional appropriations riders began prohibiting ATF from using any funds to investigate or act upon § 925(c) applications. The statutory right remained on the books — § 925(c) was never repealed — but the mechanism for exercising it was defunded. The Supreme Court in Bean confirmed that without an actual denial from the executive agency, courts could not step in. The right existed. The pathway did not.
For 34 years, applications piled up with no process to review them. People who might have qualified for restoration had no realistic option. State relief processes — which exist in many states and operate independently of the federal system — could restore state rights but could not touch the federal disability. The federal § 925(c) pathway was legally preserved but practically nonexistent.
AG Blanche's rule does not repeal the appropriations rider on ATF. It routes around it by moving the process to a different office with different funding. The legal architecture of the solution is straightforward even if the political will to execute it took 34 years to materialize.
Applications are not yet open as of August 28. The rule takes effect September 21, 2026, and the DOJ has announced a staged rollout beginning approximately 30 days after the Federal Register publication date of August 20 — which puts the initial opening around September 19.
The DOJ has not publicly explained precisely how initial candidates will be identified or selected. The rollout page states the department will “invite candidates to apply” during the initial stage. This suggests the first wave may be limited to a selected group rather than open to all applicants simultaneously. Full public access to the application portal is expected to follow, though no specific date has been announced.
| August 17, 2026 | AG Blanche announces final rule. DOJ press release published. 30-million-Americans figure cited. |
|---|---|
| August 20, 2026 | Final rule published in Federal Register. 28 C.F.R. Part 107 created. Clock starts on staged rollout. |
| ~Sept. 19, 2026 | 30 days after Federal Register publication. DOJ begins inviting initial candidates to apply. Application portal expected to open in limited stage. |
| September 21, 2026 | Rule becomes effective. Full regulatory framework in place. |
| TBD | Full public access to application portal. No specific date announced as of August 28. |
| Application fee | $30. Fee waiver available for indigency. Submit with application. |
| Processing time | Not yet announced. Expect individualized review; timeline likely depends on volume and staffing. |
The staged rollout and the individual review standard mean that preparation matters. Here is what anyone interested in applying should be doing now, before the portal opens:
The NRA told Fox News Digital it has long championed the restoration of Second Amendment rights for individuals who paid their debt to society — framing the rule as consistent with the principle that rehabilitation deserves recognition. The Second Amendment Foundation, which has litigated numerous rights restoration cases over the years, noted the rule's significance as the first functional federal pathway since the 1990s.
The rule is also notable in the context of the 2026 Second Amendment landscape. The same administration that declined to appeal the Silencer Shop Foundation ruling, moved the ATF to a deregulatory posture under Director Cekada, eliminated the NFA tax, and rescinded the pistol brace rule is now restoring the federal rights pathway that Congress shut down 34 years ago. The pattern is consistent: a systematic reduction in federal barriers to lawful gun ownership across multiple fronts simultaneously.
Critics of the rule — primarily gun control organizations — have argued that any pathway for convicted felons to regain firearm rights poses public safety risks. The DOJ's response to that critique is embedded in the rule's structure: the individualized review standard, the strong presumption against relief for violent offenders and sex offenders, and the explicit carveout that federal restoration does not override state law. The rule is specifically not a blanket restoration program. It is a case-by-case process that requires applicants to earn relief by demonstrating rehabilitation.
The Silencer Shop Foundation ruling got the headlines this month. The first unregistered suppressor transfers since 1934 got the footage. But the § 925(c) restoration rule may affect more Americans than any single court ruling this year. Thirty million people have lost their federal firearm rights. Many of those people lost them for nonviolent offenses committed decades ago, have rebuilt their lives since, and are asking a reasonable question: why does a thirty-year-old nonviolent conviction result in a lifetime ban?
The new rule provides the first realistic answer to that question since 1992. It does not answer it automatically, it does not answer it for everyone, and it does not override state law. But it answers it for the first time in a generation, through a process that is funded, staffed, and legally structured to actually function.
Gun Talk Media will track the rollout, the application process, and any legal challenges as they develop. The portal is expected to open in stages beginning around September 19. Watch GunTalk.com for updates.
Gun Talk Giveaway
Must be 18+ to enter. Void where restricted.
