Nearly 30 years ago, a woman wrote a bad check. Another man falsified food stamp documents. Others inflated tax deductions. All paid their dues — yet still face a lifetime ban on gun ownership. 

Now, the Trump administration is pushing to change that.

The Department of Justice’s proposed rule would allow certain nonviolent felons to petition for the restoration of their gun rights — marking the most significant shift in federal firearms policy in decades. The move has stirred praise, criticism, and constitutional debate, reigniting questions over redemption, public safety, and the limits of the Second Amendment.

The proposal, published in July, would establish a legal process by which individuals with nonviolent felony convictions could petition to have their gun rights restored, provided they demonstrate rehabilitation, a clean post-conviction record, and no history of violent behavior.

“For too long, countless Americans with criminal histories have been permanently disenfranchised from exercising the right to keep and bear arms — a right every bit as constitutionally enshrined as the right to vote, the right to free speech, and the right to free exercise of religion—irrespective of whether they actually pose a threat,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement. “No longer.”

Supporters emphasize that the rule is a long-overdue correction to an overly harsh, one-size-fits-all policy that overlooks recent constitutional rulings. Critics, however, contend it would dangerously expand gun access and weaken longstanding federal restrictions on felons.

“The new proposed rule does not strike down prohibiting factors for being unconstitutional, but rather creates a process in which prohibited persons can receive executive clemency or grace,” Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut tells the New York Sun. “It will be for the courts to decide. In essence, the new rule simply ‘reactivates’ an already existing program while adding transparent criteria of who can apply.”

Why Now? The Legal Backdrop

Nearly thirty years ago, Congress shut down a key program that allowed reformed felons to apply for the restoration of their gun rights, effectively stripping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) of its authority to review petitions from nonviolent offenders who had demonstrated significant rehabilitation.

That could soon change. Yet this time, the discretion would lie with the Department of Justice.  The proposed rule would establish a petition process allowing federal courts to restore gun rights to certain felons based on factors like the offense type, time since conviction, and signs of rehabilitation. 

The Department of Justice calls it a “measured response” to growing legal challenges against blanket lifetime firearm bans. Public comments are open through mid-September.

“While there is a historical tradition of disarming felons in the United States, felonies historically were capital offenses that received the death penalty, and they were usually limited to violent acts such as murder or acts of rebellion toward government like treason,” Second Amendment attorney Cameron Atkinson tells the Sun. 

“Today, a felony is any crime punishable by more than a year in prison. In other words, felonies between 1791 and 1868 were way more serious and violent than the overwhelming number of felonies currently in place today.”

The Trump administration’s proposed rule reflects a broader legal shift following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which introduced a historical test for gun laws. Since then, some courts have questioned whether lifetime firearm bans for nonviolent felons are constitutional.

Redemption or Risk?

The rule, however, has triggered pushback from gun safety advocates and some state officials. California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a strongly worded statement condemning the proposed rollback as reckless and irresponsible.

“Felons are prohibited from owning firearms for a reason,” Mr. Bonta said. “This rule could allow thousands of potentially dangerous individuals to legally rearm themselves, threatening the safety of our communities.”

Mr. Bonta’s statement reflects the broader stance of gun reform groups, which argue that reducing firearm restrictions for any felon — even nonviolent ones — increases the risk of gun violence, especially in domestic situations or during periods of mental health decline.

“The main public safety concern associated with restoring firearm rights to those with felony convictions is the risk of future violence. A history of violence is one of the strongest predictors of future violence. Still, even some nonviolent convictions are closely associated with violence or violent crime,” Deputy Director for Federal Policy at GIFFORDS Law Center, Yasmín Fletcher Braithwaite, tells the Sun. 

“For example, offenses like drug trafficking, which can be connected to violence, or felony DUI convictions, which demonstrate an individual’s lack of impulse control and have been shown to be associated with a higher risk of gun violence.”

According to Ms. Braithwaite, the “Department of Justice’s proposed rule acknowledges this risk but leaves a lot to the personal discretion of the Attorney General, which is concerning.”

“That could mean someone who shouldn’t have a gun could then get their rights restored if they’re friends with the right people,” she continued.

Many, however, don’t see the rule as a threat but as an important step in the right direction. Civil liberties advocates and some conservatives have applauded the move as a restoration of fundamental rights for people who have paid their debt to society.

A Patchwork of State Laws

While the proposed rule would create a federal standard, state laws could still impose stricter limits on felons’ gun rights, potentially overriding federal restoration. In states like California and New York, restored individuals may still be barred from owning firearms, raising complex legal and enforcement questions that could spark future court challenges.

“We are always dealing with two bodies of law, federal and state. An individual may be prohibited under one and not the other,” Mr. Kraut explained. “If an individual is prohibited by both federal and state law but obtains federal relief pursuant to this new rule, assuming it is adopted, they would be able to lawfully possess firearms and ammunition under federal law, but any remaining state prohibitions would remain unchanged.”

He further underscored that “if they were to visit or move to another state, depending on the laws of that jurisdiction, they may be free to possess firearms and ammunition there.”

“The federal prohibition would follow them wherever they go, while the state law prohibition may not,” Mr. Kraut continued. “The federal prohibition is a lifetime prohibition, which traps any number of people who had a lapse in judgment at a young age but matured and went on to be law-abiding, productive citizens.”

Mr. Atkinson observed that some states, like Connecticut, “offer no pathway to remove felony firearms disqualifiers for anyone.”

“Those states will not be affected by the change in federal law, and they will face Second Amendment challenges from nonviolent felons seeking to have their firearms rights restored,” he said. “Those challenges will play out semi-independently from federal law, but litigants will use their federal firearms restoration as extra ammo in Second Amendment challenges.”

Mr. Atkinson, in other words, is highlighting a potential legal showdown. As federal law becomes more accommodating to nonviolent felons seeking to restore their gun rights, states with very rigid, no-pathway systems like Connecticut may find themselves increasingly vulnerable to Second Amendment challenges from individuals who have demonstrated rehabilitation.

So far, the Department of Justice has not addressed how the proposed rule would interact with state law — a silence that some legal analysts say invites confusion and future litigation.

The Road Ahead

The Department’s proposed rule now enters a mandatory public comment period, during which advocacy groups, law enforcement, legal scholars, and ordinary citizens can weigh in. Afterward, the Department will decide whether to finalize, amend, or withdraw the proposal based on the feedback it receives.

“In a public comment to the Department of Justice, GIFFORDS has recommended the inclusion of a clinical evaluation of applicants to assess suicide risk,” said Ms. Braithwaite. 

“The proposed rule does not address applicants’ suicide risk, but studies have shown that people released from prison are at least seven times more likely to die by suicide than the general population. Access to firearms could further exacerbate these risks, given that firearms are one of the most lethal means of suicide.”

Ultimately, the debate cuts to the heart of one of America’s most contested questions: when — or if — a person convicted of a serious crime can truly regain all the rights of citizenship. Some pro-gun advocates, however, are not confident that the change will garner the broad backing it needs. 

“I am not optimistic that this will take on a broader theme of criminal justice reform. This issue is too politically charged and is more of a Second Amendment issue that even Second Amendment advocates are reluctant to touch,” Mr. Atkinson added. 

“I don’t see it receiving widespread support. That’s why it was an incredibly bold step for President Trump and Attorney General Bondi to take such decisive action to formulate a strategy to restore Second Amendment rights. Major props to them for doing so.”