Some People are prohibited to own or possess a firearm for the following reasons:
- Crimes punishable by one year or greater jail time (regardless of whether you spend a single night in jail).
- Someone involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
- Someone who has illegally used a controlled substance in the past year - even including someone who used a prescription drug for which they did not have a prescription.
Relief through 18 U.S.C. § 925(c)
Those persons who have had their firearms rights revoked for the above reasons may seek to have them restored through 18 U.S.C. § 925(c)
.
Each state's laws are different.
- Some provide that you are prohibited to own a firearm if you are prohibited under federal law. Thus, a grant of federal firearms relief would restore the right to own a firearm.
- Other states provide that you must first get federal firearms relief before seeking state relief. Federal relief may have a great impact on the state judge considering your state relief application.
Why use Prince Law?
Prince Law has been representing individuals in restoring federal & state firearms rights for decades. Prince Law is the only law firm that has extensively investigated, studied, & lectured on pre-1992 relief applications, which provide us with the necessary information- as well as constitutional arguments – to provide you with the best chance for success in your relief application.
FAQs
History of Federal Firearms Relief
In 1968, with the Government’s proliferation of what constituted a “prohibited person” for purposes of purchasing, possessing, and utilizing firearms and ammunition, and the resultant concern over the constitutionality of this growing inclusiveness, the Congress enacted, as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. Law 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 (Jun. 19, 1968), a relief mechanism. Initially, the Secretary of Treasury was empowered to provide relief only to a “person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (other than a crime involving the use of a firearm or other weapon or a violation of this chapter or of the National Firearms Act).” Over time, however, that authority was transferred to the Attorney General and expanded to allow the Attorney General to provide relief to any “person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition” and to allow such a person to “make application to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws.” 18 U.S.C. § 925(c).
Regulations establishing a process to implement the relief-from-disabilities provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) were also first promulgated in 1968. See Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, 33 FR 18555 (Dec. 14, 1968). Initially, those regulations delegated the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to adjudicate applications to remove disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. See 26 CFR 178.144 (1968). Treasury Department Order 221 (June 6, 1972) created the forerunner of ATF, within the Department of the Treasury, effective July 1, 1972. See 37 FR 11696. In 1975, the Secretary of the Treasury “transfer[red] the functions, powers and duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising under laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives” to this new entity. See Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 40 FR 16835 (Apr. 15, 1975).
Under title XI, subtitle B, section 1111 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002) (“HSA”), the “authorities, functions, personnel, and assets” of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury were transferred to the Department of Justice, with the exception of certain enumerated authorities retained by the Department of the Treasury. Id. 1111(c)(2), (d). In short, the HSA created two separate agencies, ATF in the Department of Justice and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau in the Department of the Treasury.
Under 28 U.S.C. 509, “[a]ll functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General,” except for functions not relevant here. Moreover, the HSA expressly provided that “the Attorney General may make such provisions as the Attorney General determines appropriate to authorize the performance by any officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function transferred to the Attorney General under this section.” HSA 1111; see also 28 U.S.C. 510 (“The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General”). In doing so, the HSA made clear that the primary functions of ATF were investigating “criminal and regulatory violations of the Federal firearms, explosives, arson, alcohol, and tobacco smuggling laws” as well as other violent crimes and domestic terrorism as assigned by the Attorney General. HSA 1111(b). It also amended 18 U.S.C. 925(c) to make clear that an individual seeking relief from the disabilities related to firearms imposed by Federal laws must now seek relief from the Attorney General. Id. 1112(f)(6).
Pursuant to this statutory authority, and consistent with historical practice, the Attorney General delegated authority to adjudicate requests for relief from disabilities on the use of firearms as imposed by Federal law to ATF. See 27 CFR 478.144; Reorganization of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, 68 FR 3744 (Jan. 24, 2003). This delegation was effectuated through a final rule that took immediate effect and was exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking. 68 FR 3747.
In the early 1990s, Congress became concerned about the number of resources that ATF was using to adjudicate requests to relieve individual Americans from disabilities on their ownership of firearms. S. Rep. 102-353 (“The Committee believes that the approximately 40 man-years spent annually to investigate and act upon these investigations and applications would be better utilized to crack down on violent crime.”). Congressional reports also stated that judging whether applicants posed “a danger to public safety” was “a very difficult and subjective task,” id., and alleged (without any evidence of record) that “too many felons . . . whose gun ownership rights were restored went on to commit crimes with firearms,” H.R. Rep. 104-183 (1996). To allow ATF to return to its core function of investigating violations of federal firearms laws, see id. (“The Committee expects ATF to redeploy the positions and funding presently supporting firearms disability relief to the Armed Career Criminal program.”), Congress provided in 1992 that “none of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c).” Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1993, Public Law 102-393, 106 Stat 1729 (1992).
Since then, ATF contended that it has been unable to effectuate its regulatory authority to act on individual applications due to an identical appropriations rider enacted annually. See, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-42, 138 Stat. 25, 139 (2024) (“ Provided, That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code”); see also Is there a way for a prohibited person to restore their right to receive or possess firearms and ammunition?, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/there-way-prohibited-person-restore-their-right-receive-or-possess-firearms-and (last visited February 15, 2025) (“Although federal law provides a means for the relief of firearms disabilities, ATF’s annual appropriation since October 1992 has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.”).
ATF is, however, able to act on applications for relief from disabilities under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) filed by corporations, which are historically far less common. See, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-42, 138 Stat. 25, 139 (2024) (“ Provided further, That such funds shall be available to investigate and act upon applications filed by corporations for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code”). It has not received such an application since 2018, rendering ATF’s existing regulations effectively moribund.
Regardless, as noted above, when it passed the HSA, Congress chose to transfer authority to remove individual firearms disabilities from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Attorney General. As a result, 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) continues to provide a remedy to remove disabilities from firearms possession for certain individuals even though ATF has been unable to act on any application for such relief since 1992 due to the annual appropriations rider.
More recently and importantly, on March 20, 2025, Attorney General Pamela Bondi revoked the delegation of authority to ATF, returning the power to make relief determinations to the Attorney General. See 90 FR 13080. Thus, at least at the present time (unless and until Congress repeals 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) or restricts the Attorney General’s ability to grant relief through an appropriation restriction), federal firearm relief determinations are available!
From What Types of Federal Prohibitions Can I Get Relief?
Federal law prohibits various categories of persons from purchasing, possessing and utilizing firearms and ammunition. These include someone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in jail (regardless of whether you spent a single night in jail), to someone who was involuntarily committed to a mental institution, to someone who has illegally utilized a controlled substance in the past year – which even includes someone who used a prescription drug, for which they did not have a prescription – and several groups in-between. While there are numerous court challenges to the constitutionality of these prohibitions, the quickest and by far the cheapest option for relief from any federal firearms disability is to obtain relief through 18 U.S.C. § 925(c).
Will a Grant of Federal Relief Alleviate Any State Disability?
Unfortunately, each state’s laws are different. Some provide that an individual is prohibited, merely if he/she is prohibited under federal law. In such a situation, a grant of federal firearms relief would alleviate any such disability. Other states provide that an individual must first obtain federal firearms relief, if such is available, before seeking state relief. Thus, as a general rule of thumb, if federal firearms relief is available, you must first seek and obtain it. Moreover, even if your state requires you to obtain federal relief before seeking state relief, the issuance of relief by the U.S. Government is likely to have a profound impact on the judge considering your state relief application.
Why You Should Use Our Services
We have been representing individuals for decades in restoring their rights under both federal and state law. We are the only law firm that has extensively investigated, studied, and lectured on pre-1992 relief applications, which provides us with the necessary information – as well as constitutional arguments – to provide you with the best chance for success in your relief application. Moreover, based on our extensive and successful litigation against the U.S. Government for deprivation of Second Amendment rights, we have the inside track on how to currently file relief applications. That’s right; the U.S. Government is so accustomed to losing to us that it has provided us with the information to seek administrative relief, so that it doesn’t have to go up against us in the federal courts!
And our unmatched, forward thinking in how to win challenges in the courts is something we bring to our clients in their initial applications. While there is a statutory ability to appeal any denied relief application in the federal courts, an appeal to the federal courts costs a LOT of money. While other firms, once they get up to speed, will provide lackluster legal advice and guidance during your application phase – with the hopes of you paying them for an appeal to the district court when you are denied – we not only care deeply about our clients and their rights, but also, our Founders’ intent. That’s why, if you retain us to represent your interests in any initial relief determination, we will make it virtually impossible for the U.S. Government to deny your application. And in the event they do, they will have an almost insurmountable burden before the district court, if you follow our advice.
I Made A Mistake, I Went With Another Law Firm And Lost
In the event you filed without representation or were represented by another law firm and were denied, contact us immediately to discuss your situation. Beyond filing an appeal to the district court, given our successful experience litigating Second Amendment challenges, we may be able to offer options and solutions that others will be unable to provide. While the cost will likely be more than if we had represented you in your relief application, any solution – absent filing an appeal to the federal district court and litigating the issue before the court (including thereafter appeals) – is going to cost you FAR less in restoring your rights.