Recommendations to Strengthen Proposed Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Rule
Photo by bpperry / Getty Images, via Canva
The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, together with the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy, has submitted a comment to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on its proposed rule governing the restoration of firearm rights to individuals prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law.
Federal law bars many individuals, such as those convicted of felonies or domestic violence-related offenses, from purchasing or possessing firearms but allows them to petition for rights restoration. However, since 1992, Congress has blocked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from processing these petitions after people with violent convictions regained access to guns and reoffended. In March 2025, the new administration issued an Interim Final Rule transferring this authority from ATF to the Department of Justice (DOJ), effectively bypassing the congressional ban. Within months, nine people, including actor Mel Gibson, convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, had their federal firearm rights restored. Now, the administration has proposed a new rule that could expand the process to millions more. Because most firearm prohibitions arise from state convictions, the federal shift may spur states to reconsider how they handle rights restoration. This moment offers an opportunity to promote fair, evidence-based systems that balance rehabilitation with public safety.
The Center and Consortium commended the DOJ for advancing a structured, individualized process for firearm rights restoration, while offering several key recommendations to strengthen the rule and better protect public health through clear, evidence-based criteria.
“Restoration policy must take adequate account of both risk reduction and rights protection,” the authors wrote. “Balancing liberty with justice in a manner that strengthens public trust while avoiding unwarranted risks of firearm harms.”
Reflecting evidence that recidivism falls as time since the last offense increases, the authors recommend establishing tiered time-based limits on firearm restoration. For serious offenses such as domestic violence, the authors recommend allowing firearm rights restoration only if the applicant, after release, has spent at least 10 consecutive years without any new convictions or findings of not guilty by reason of insanity immediately preceding their application. For all other disqualifying events, the authors recommend a period of 5 years. The authors also recommend permanent ineligibility for individuals convicted of or found not guilty by reason of insanity for homicide or other crimes of extreme violence.
This approach aligns with research showing that the vast majority of reoffending occurs within the first decade following release, after which the risk declines significantly.
The comment recommends that the Attorney General restore firearm rights only upon finding by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant no longer poses a danger to public safety. In making firearm restoration determinations, the authors recommend that objective risk factors such as acts or threats of violence, substance misuse history, and compliance with restraining or protection orders always be taken into account.
To ensure transparency and consistency, the Center and Consortium urge the DOJ to improve application procedures and notifications to law enforcement, prosecutors, victims and individuals protected by restraining orders when an application is filed.
The comment also recommends that the DOJ train personnel in evidence-based risk assessment and collect comprehensive data on applications, outcomes, and subsequent offenses to ensure continuous policy improvement.
The Center and Consortium support the DOJ’s goal of restoring firearm rights responsibly and equitably to individuals who no longer pose a substantial risk. However, they urge the Department to adopt clear standards and safeguards grounded in empirical research to prevent inconsistent outcomes and ensure fairness across cases.
