Federal firearms-rights relief: first public applications open November 4

[CAguns-News]

People barred under federal firearms law will have a new way to seek relief. DOJ opens its first public phase to 5,000 applicants on Nov. 4, 2026; a $30 fee begins Jan. 4, 2027. Approval is not automatic and does not remove California prohibitions.

Read the full article on CA2A.com

Primary source

What does this change mean for California firearm owners? Discuss below.

CA2A Newsroom · AI-generated editorial illustration. Educational information, not legal advice.

 

[MysteryScienceHeater3000]

One day closer to “shall issue” restored rights

 

[dvoncock]

I think it basically creates a right without a remedy for someone in California, in the short term. Someone whose federal petition was granted would probably have standing to sue California, but that take years and a fortune.

 

[BeAuMaN]

I think it basically creates a right without a remedy for someone in California, in the short term. Someone whose federal petition was granted would probably have standing to sue California, but that take years and a fortune

What's the theory on that? Because they haven't had a pathway to restoration until now, and so the injury is the previous lack of pathway without restoration?

 

[dvoncock]

What's the theory on that? Because they haven't had a pathway to restoration until now, and so the injury is the previous lack of pathway without restoration?

If someone is prohibited under California and federal law (for the same reason) gets their federal probation lifted, they would still be prohibited under California law. That’s a distinction without a difference, because prohibited is prohibited for all practical purposes. The right to have federal firearms rights restored provides no realistic, practical remedy, if it doesn’t also restore firearms rights under state law.

Off the top of my head, the only specific scenario I can think of where a federal petition would help is misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Those carry a 10-year ban in California law and lifetime federally, as far as I understand. Maybe I'm cynical, but I seriously doubt the feds are going to grant those types of petitions.

ADDED: I also don’t think lawsuits to restore firearms rights under state law following restoration of federal rights don’t have much chance of success. A good example is voting rights. Some states restore felons’ voting rights and others don’t. Federal courts consistently say either is okay because the states have the inherent authority to restore or not restore that fundamental right following a felony conviction.

 

[BeAuMaN]

Off the top of my head, the only specific scenario I can think of where a federal petition would help is misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Those carry a 10-year ban in California law and lifetime federally, as far as I understand. Maybe I'm cynical, but I seriously doubt the feds are going to grant those types of petitions.

You're forgetting about those who have spent at least 1 day in commitment of a mental health facility also lose their federal firearm rights via 922(g)(4) (Generally CA WIC 5250). California is one of 16 states (+ Washington DC, and all the US territories except for Guam) that doesn't have a federal rights restoration process compliant under 34 USC § 40915. In the 9th circuit standing precedent is Duy Mai v. United States which essentially held that it was fine that Duy Mai restored his state firearm rights via state court (Washington), but that it did not restore his federal rights, and that 925(c) was defunded (at the time), and it was essentially the intention of congress that he have no path to restoring his federal firearm rights. He was denied En Banc. Such an unjust ruling... though that was pre-Bruen; I doubt a similar case would have the same result. (Edit: Anyone reading, read the conclusion on Duy Mai v. United States. It was just such a terrible opinion)

Anyhow, so basically the now reformulated 925(c) rights restoration process opens up a pathway to those who have had a 5250 stay in California to restore their federal rights. Those who have had an involuntary stay via 5250 get their state firearm rights automatically restored after 5 years unless petitioned early, so the sticking point has always been on the federal/925(g)(4) end.

Lot of Californians are going to have the opportunity to get their firearm rights back. Numbers wise... Looks like there were roughly ~30,000 5250 involuntary commitments in 2021 (Appendix A, PDF page 12)? That's a lot of people annually if those numbers are mostly consistent year to year.

 

[dvoncock]

You're forgetting about those who have spent at least 1 day in commitment of a mental health facility also lose their federal firearm rights via 922(g)(4) (Generally CA WIC 5250). California is one of 16 states (+ Washington DC, and all the US territories except for Guam) that doesn't have a federal rights restoration process compliant under 34 USC § 40915. In the 9th circuit standing precedent is Duy Mai v. United States which essentially held that it was fine that Duy Mai restored his state firearm rights via state court (Washington), but that it did not restore his federal rights, and that 925(c) was defunded (at the time), and it was essentially the intention of congress that he have no path to restoring his federal firearm rights. He was denied En Banc. Such an unjust ruling... though that was pre-Bruen; I doubt a similar case would have the same result. (Edit: Anyone reading, read the conclusion on Duy Mai v. United States. It was just such a terrible opinion)

Anyhow, so basically the now reformulated 925(c) rights restoration process opens up a pathway to those who have had a 5250 stay in California to restore their federal rights. Those who have had an involuntary stay via 5250 get their state firearm rights automatically restored after 5 years unless petitioned early, so the sticking point has always been on the federal/925(g)(4) end.

Lot of Californians are going to have the opportunity to get their firearm rights back. Numbers wise... Looks like there were roughly ~30,000 5250 involuntary commitments in 2021 (Appendix A, PDF page 12)? That's a lot of people annually if those numbers are mostly consistent year to year.

Excellent point. I actually did not know there was no existing path for people to regain their federal firearms rights after an involuntary psychiatric commitment. California has a robust process for that, and I just assumed the feds either accepted a state’s decision, or had an analogous procedure.

ADD: after reading Dui May v. United States, I agree it wouldn’t pass higher court review today, because the Ninth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny. That was the framework for 2A claims for a long time, even after Heller and McDonald (arguably). Bruen is very clear that the correct standard of review for 2A claims is strict scrutiny, just like any other claim arising from a fundamental right.