The Justice Department is poised to implement a new policy that would allow some individuals with criminal convictions to regain their right to own firearms. This initiative stems from recent internal discussions sparked by a controversial decision to allow actor Mel Gibson, a noted supporter of President Trump, access to firearms following his criminal conviction.
This move has sparked a heated debate just under a year after the Supreme Court ruled that the government could prohibit firearms access to individuals under restraining orders related to domestic violence. Following the confirmation of Attorney General Pam Bondi in February 2025, President Trump ordered a sweeping review of the federal government’s gun policies, igniting discussions about how to navigate the balance between public safety and individual rights.
The Justice Department maintains that it still advocates for restrictions on access to firearms for “violent and dangerous people.” However, the interim rule, set to be published on March 20, 2025, in The Federal Register, emphasizes that there should be an “appropriate avenue” for otherwise deserving individuals to restore their rights.
Determining eligibility for restoring gun rights will depend on a combination of previous criminal behavior and an individual’s current conduct. While the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (A.T.F.) has historically had the authority to restore gun rights, the passage of congressional spending bills in 1992 effectively stripped that power, leading to this latest rule aimed at shifting authority back to the attorney general for delegated decision-making.
Gun rights advocates celebrated the announcement, with Gun Owners of America characterizing it as “outstanding progress.” In contrast, some gun control advocates expressed serious concerns about the implications. Kris Brown, president of the Brady organization, labeled the new policy a “blatant and dangerous power grab” by the Trump administration, suggesting it disproportionately benefits the gun industry’s donors.
The internal deliberations within the Justice Department have been intense. Notably, Elizabeth G. Oyer, the department’s former pardon attorney, was recently terminated after refusing to recommend that Gibson, who has a history of domestic violence, have his gun rights restored. Oyer stated, “This isn’t political. This is a safety issue,” highlighting the complexity of the considerations at play in these discussions.
As conversations about eligibility unfolded, department officials quickly agreed upon excluding individuals convicted of murder and armed robbery from consideration. However, they also engaged in discussions about whether to extend restoration rights to those with domestic violence convictions. One suggestion that raised particular alarm was an automatic restoration policy, which would rely on a computer system to assess cases, rather than human oversight.
When paired with the recently released interim rule, the discussions surrounding gun rights restoration reflect a broader ideological battle taking place in American society. The degree to which individuals deserve a second chance, especially following past mistakes, pits public safety concerns against the fundamental right to bear arms.
The Justice Department's approach highlights the delicate balance of hope for rehabilitation expressed by proponents of gun rights and the prevailing fears of risk highlighted by advocates of gun control. The scrutiny in this scenario not only emphasizes the challenges of criminal justice reform but also illustrates the complexities of reconciling individual liberty with community safety in an era of heightened gun violence.
As the rule awaits formal publication and potential, further debate looms in both public discourse and political arenas. The partisan divide on the issue of gun rights promises to fuel ongoing discussions about the nature of justice, redemption, and public safety in the United States.
As Americans continue to grapple with questions of reform, one thing is clear: the conversation around gun rights restoration is far from over, and the implications of these decisions will reverberate well beyond the walls of the Justice Department.
