By John Petrolino
Attorney General Bondi published a proposed rule that would reinvent how people may receive relief from firearm disabilities. The rule would return control of the decades-dormant program to the DOJ.
The federal relief from firearms disability program has been dormant since the early 1990s. Formerly, those who were barred from firearm ownership had a pathway to have their rights restored. In 1992, the Violence Policy Center published a paper arguing the program was harmful and needed to be put to an end. VPC successfully petitioned Congress about the alleged issues with the program and it was defunded. On July 18, 2025, Bondi’s office announced they’ve published a proposed rule to return the administration of the program back to the U.S. Attorney General.
The Attorney General recognized that the defunding “applies only to [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms]” and she “recently issued an interim final rule withdrawing the delegation of authority to ATF.” The transfer of responsibilities would be from the defunded program under the ATF back to the Attorney General proper.
The issue has to do with those who are disqualified from owning/possessing firearms under the federal disabilities. Looking at federal law 18 U.S. Code § 922, the list of those who may not possess/own a firearm includes any person:
- convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
- who is a fugitive from justice;
- who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
- who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
- who is an illegal alien;
- who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
- who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
- who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
- who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
- [who is] under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Per the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Like most societal questions dealing with liberties and punishment, it gets murky when trying to define who’s precluded from “the people.” Congress has deemed it necessary to remove those they’ve labeled disqualified from what makes up the people.
Perhaps broadly defined, felons are precluded from other activities beyond the exercise of the Second Amendment. There are limitations on the following rights/activities should an individual meet certain conditions: voting, traveling abroad, jury service, employment in certain fields, public social benefits and housing, and parental benefits.
The question that needs to be asked when it comes to civil liberties, rights, and civic duties is: if a person has paid their debt to society, why are they not reincluded as a whole member of the people?
While critics of removing firearm disabilities might argue that the right to keep and bear arms is the only right that could kill people, they’re grossly ignoring the fact that our released criminals are supposed to be rehabilitated. If an individual is safe enough to no longer be in custody and walk amongst the people, shouldn’t they be safe enough to have a firearm? To not even offer a pathway to return any right is to admit the complete failure of our criminal justice system.
If we want to draw a comparison on rights that some policymakers find favorable versus disfavorable, we don’t need to look further than the restoration of voting rights. The 2024 party platform of the Democratic party — which also heavily supports gun control — specifically champions voting rights. The Freedom to Vote Act is one such policy the party said they support.
“The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election,” is stated in section 1703 of the bill that was introduced during the 117th Congress.
Listed under Congress’ Constitutional authority in the bill is the following:
Congress finds that felony disenfranchisement was one of the tools of intentional racial discrimination during the Jim Crow era. Congress further finds that current racial disparities in felony disenfranchisement are linked to this history of voter suppression, structural racism in the criminal justice system, and ongoing effects of historical discrimination.
The bill makes some further assertions that are meaningful to point out. From their findings:
Many felony disenfranchisement laws today derive directly from post-Civil War efforts to stifle the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Between 1865 and 1880, at least 14 states—Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas—enacted or expanded their felony disenfranchisement laws. One of the primary goals of these laws was to prevent African Americans from voting. Of the states that enacted or expanded their felony disenfranchisement laws during this post-Civil War period, at least 11 continue to preclude persons on felony probation or parole from voting.
The same exact time period and set of laws are where the gun control movement got its foundation. Laws at the time were designed to keep freed slaves from being armed.
Today, state attorneys general in hostile-to-the Second Amendment states are using the post-Civil War period and Jim Crow era laws to draw analogues to modern gun control laws. Under the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision, the state or government must provide a law that’s an analogue from “the time of the founding” that’s akin to the law they’re defending. They claim the ratification of the 14th Amendment is the relevant period.
Their logic is deeply and fundamentally flawed, as well as contradictory to their stances on rights they find more favorable — such as voting. If these eras are unacceptable concerning how voting rights were handled, it’s not a stretch to say the same for gun rights.
Limitations on gun rights also came post-Civil Rights Movement — another time in history that Blacks were emancipated. The 1968 Gun Control Act was the proverbial death throes of gun rights for minorities who are disproportionately affected by the law, specifically the Black population. At the time, Blacks were considered part of the people only four years prior to the enactment of the GCA, think about that.
Our society should not seek to just penalize, but also reform those who engage in criminal activity. We must assume that reformation is possible within the confines of our system.
If committed, some crimes that are malum in se; wrong or evil in itself, should preclude people from exercising their Second Amendment right. There’s a host of crimes that are malum prohibitum; wrong or illegal simply because it is prohibited by statute, that should not preclude people from being able to possess firearms. In both cases there should be rights restoration paths for those who have been rehabilitated.
“The proposed rule will provide citizens whose firearm rights are currently under legal disability with an avenue to restore those rights, while keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals and illegal aliens,” Bondi’s release states. “Ultimate discretion to grant relief will remain with the Attorney General, and she will exercise that discretion on a case-by-case basis in light of all available facts and evidence that bear on an individual’s application. But absent extraordinary circumstances, violent felons, registered sex offenders, and illegal aliens, in particular, will remain presumptively ineligible for relief.”
There’s a host of conflict going on over partisan issues in the United States right now. While one party may regard certain rights to be the ones they champion over others and vice versa, this issue should be uncontroversial. Opening the doorway for those who have paid their debts to society to have rights restored is not a negative thing, nor a partisan thing, but rather a sign of a civilized society.
This is a policy that should be embraced by both progressives and conservatives alike.
