Today is the last day for the public to comment on the Department of Justice’s proposed rule that would allow prohibited persons to petition the Attorney General to have their Second Amendment rights restored, and if you haven’t submitted your comment you can do so here.
The DOJ’s proposal has been generally been greeted with enthusiasm by Second Amendment groups, but as we wrote back in July, when the rule was first introduced, there are some areas of concern. My biggest issues with the proposed rule, as written are that 1) a lack of a fixed deadline for DOJ to approve or deny a fully completed application for relief, which leaves open the possibility that these applications will simply sit and not be acted on… especially during an anti-gun administration; and 2) the establishment of the rule might allow the courts to avoid addressing substantive questions about the scope of Section 922(g) and its many disqualifying crimes. The rule presumes that Section 922(g) is entirely constitutional, but some courts have held that portions of the language are constitutionally problematic.
The National Rifle Association released a list of its own concerns when the rule was first proposed back in July, and now Gun Owners of America has submitted its own list of problems with the rule as its currently written.
Read GOA’s full list of suggestions to @theJusticeDept to fix its gun rights restoration program proposal here.⤵️https://t.co/svBiZFlrkF pic.twitter.com/riFo4vaK3T
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) October 17, 2025
Among the GOA’s suggestions are a way for applicants to track the progress of their petitions as well as a deadline for DOJ to act on applications for relief. But GOA also believes that the DOJ should not penalize non-violent offenders who lost their Second Amendment rights for violating possessory gun control laws.
The NPRM identifies several types of convictions that will cause applications for relief to be “denied, absent extraordinary circumstances,” irrespective of the amount of time that has elapsed since a sentence for that conviction has been served. NPRM at 34402. But these convictions include inherently nonviolent violations of the Gun Control Act, such as violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) (simple possession of a firearm with a removed or obliterated serial number), § 922(o) (simple possession of an unregistered “machinegun”), and § 922(q) (simple possession of a firearm within a school zone). Indeed, although these offenses all deal with firearms, the simple possession of a firearm is neither inherently “violent” or inherently “dangerous.” It is, in fact, constitutionally protected.
GOA also takes issue with the proposed rule’s treatment of individuals convicted of violating state-level gun control laws.
Next, in a catchall provision, the NPRM presumes denial for all other state or federal felonies if one “[h]as, within the last 5 years, been convicted of or served any part of a sentence.” NPRM at 34402. DOJ should reconsider the length of this presumptive disqualification period, especially in light of its application to convictions for firearms offenses in anti-gun jurisdictions. For example, DOJ recently argued before the Seventh Circuit that Illinois’ ban on so-called “assault weapons” was unconstitutional. Yet the Illinois law banning the simple possession of these items punishes second or subsequent offenses as felonies. See 720 ILCS 5/24-1(b). The Final Rule should not compound the injustice of nonviolent firearm convictions from these states by subjecting the victims of anti-gun jurisdictions to yearslong waits for federal relief.
Another example is New York, where possession of an unlicensed firearm is treated as a violent felony with a mandatory prison sentence. Frankly, the final rule should presume the opposite of what the proposed rule states, and anyone convicted merely of possessory offenses without any underlying crimes of violence should have a presumption that their rights will be restored by the Attorney General.
GOA also believes that the catchall disqualification period should last for six months, not five years, which would allow those non-violent offenders to apply for relief far more quickly than what DOJ is proposing.
The proposed rule is a good start, but NRA, GOA, and other Second Amendment groups have identified legitimate issues with some of the specifics in the DOJ’s plan. The final rule would be much stronger and far more respecting of our right to keep and bear arms if the DOJ adopts the changes offered by 2A advocates, and I encourage you to add your voice to those calling for those revisions by submitting your own comment before today’s deadline of 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time tonight.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
