Coming in 2026—An Easier Path to 2nd Amendment Rights Restoration?

The U.S. Department of Justice has taken a significant step toward giving some Americans a clear route to restore their Second Amendment rights lost under federal gun laws. Under the long-dormant provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), the Attorney General has statutory authority to grant relief from firearms disabilities — but for decades no workable federal process existed to exercise it.

Last July, Attorney General Pamela Bondi announced a proposed rule to set out the criteria and procedures for this process, aimed at allowing individuals who are “not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety” to regain their ability to legally possess firearms. The rule makes it clear that violent felons and others deemed dangerous will remain ineligible, and that the program will focus on responsible individuals whose rights were taken without regard to the level of actual threat.

Federal officials have also made it clear that this restoration pathway is intended to balance public safety with constitutional rights, and that the proposed rule is designed to replace a decades-old bureaucratic freeze with a clear process for applications once it becomes final.

The September–October 2025 public comment period on the proposal has ended, setting the stage for DOJ to review feedback and finalize the rule — a key step before an online application portal is launched, as is expected in early 2026.

At nearly the same time as DOJ unveiled the 925(c) proposal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on a separate but related issue. In United States v. Cockerham, the Court suggested that some non-dangerous felons “shouldn’t lose gun rights forever.” While affirming that federal law generally strips firearm rights from anyone convicted of an offense punishable by over a year in prison, the ruling — and commentary around it — reflects judicial recognition that not all felons pose the same risk.

That decision adds real-world context to the DOJ’s regulatory push: if Courts increasingly question blanket bans on firearm rights without individualized assessment, a structured 925(c) process may fill a growing legal void.

At the Supreme Court, another case is shaping the broader legal landscape for Second Amendment claims. In United States v. Hemani, the High Court agreed in October 2025 to review a challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful drug users — a statute many now view under contemporary Second Amendment standards.

The Fifth Circuit had previously ruled the categorical ban unconstitutional as applied to defendants not under the influence at the time of possession, a holding that prompted the government to seek review.

That case — scheduled for argument in early 2026 with a decision expected by summer — could reshape how courts assess categorical firearm prohibitions, including future restoration efforts under § 925(c).

Across federal Appeals Courts in 2025, judges continued to grapple with Second Amendment challenges to the lifetime ban in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Multiple as-applied and prima facie challenges were distributed for certiorari consideration in various Circuits, including the Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Second Circuits. Many of these involve nonviolent felons arguing that a lifetime disability is not consistent with constitutional guarantees.

Though most of these petitions — and others — await further action, the volume of litigation underscores a sustained push among lawyers and litigants to test the scope of firearm restrictions, particularly for individuals whose past conduct poses little or no ongoing threat.

Taken together, these legal and regulatory developments suggest 2026 may finally bring a viable federal pathway for restoring Second Amendment rights for eligible Americans. DOJ’s 925(c) proposal — once finalized — could be the first structured system of its kind since the 1990s, scraping away long-standing administrative barriers that effectively froze the statute in place.

At the same time, ongoing constitutional challenges in the Courts — from the Supreme Court’s decision in Hemani to multiple appeals court challenges to blanket gun bans — reflect a public and judiciary increasingly engaged with how the Second Amendment intersects with individual circumstances. That judicial shift may well influence how restoration programs are implemented and defined.