For more than 30 years, federal firearm-rights restoration was less of a legal path than a locked door. Congress left the law on the books but stopped funding the agency that processed ordinary applications. For many people, an old conviction meant a lifetime federal prohibition with no clear way to ask for a second look.
In 2026, that door moved. It did not swing open for everyone, but three developments changed the conversation: the Supreme Court limited how the government may apply the unlawful-user ban in United States v. Hemani, the Fifth Circuit continued to test the felon-in-possession law conviction by conviction, and the Department of Justice announced a new restoration program under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c).
Those are three different doors with three different keys. One may attack an old conviction, another may challenge whether a federal ban is constitutional as applied to a particular person, and the third asks the Attorney General to lift a valid federal disability. Choosing the wrong one can waste time and possessing a gun before relief is actually granted can create a new federal case.
If you are dealing with a federal firearm prohibition, an old gun conviction, or a new weapons charge, speak with a federal gun charges defense lawyer before taking any action that could create additional criminal exposure.
What Hemani changed—and what it did not
Ali Hemani was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by a person who is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance. The government’s case relied on his regular marijuana use.
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the charge. On the record before it, the government had not shown a historical tradition broad enough to disarm Hemani because of that use alone.
That matters. The government could not simply place every regular marijuana user in the same category as a person whose intoxication or addiction made firearm possession dangerous.
The headline is broader than the holding
This is where the attention-grabbing version of Hemani—“the Supreme Court says marijuana users can own guns”—falls apart. The Court described a much narrower rule and left several harder cases for another day.
The opinion did not decide whether the government may disarm someone based on
United States v. Hemani · 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the charge. On the record before it, the government had not shown a historical tradition broad enough to disarm Hemani because of that use alone. The Court described a much narrower rule than the headline and left several harder cases for another day.
Holding Against Headline
What the Court Decided
The government could not simply place every regular marijuana user in the same category as a person whose intoxication or addiction made firearm possession dangerous.
The government's case relied on his regular marijuana use and nothing more.
What It Did Not Decide
- Addiction. The Court did not resolve a case supported by proof that the person is addicted to a controlled substance.
- Present intoxication. The ruling does not protect carrying or using a firearm while intoxicated.
- Individualized danger. Cases involving evidence that a person's drug use makes that person dangerous to themselves or others remain open.
- A felony conviction. Hemani did not invalidate the separate felon-in-possession law in § 922(g)(1).
Marijuana also remains a controlled substance under federal law. State legalization does not, by itself, erase a federal firearm prohibition. The real question is not whether Hemani made guns legal for marijuana users — it did not — but whether a particular § 922(g)(3) case matches the limited facts and constitutional reasoning that persuaded the Court.
Reopening a Final Conviction
Still in custody or on supervised release
A person still "in custody" under a federal sentence may be able to seek relief. Custody includes imprisonment, but it can also include supervised release.
Federal sentence fully served
§ 2255 is generally unavailable once the person is no longer in custody. A writ of error coram nobis may offer a narrow path — an extraordinary remedy, not § 2255 without a deadline. Courts usually require a fundamental error, continuing consequences, and a sound reason the issue was not raised earlier.
Section 2255(f)(3) may allow one year from the date the Supreme Court first recognizes a right — on the condition that the right is newly recognized and made retroactively applicable on collateral review. Courts may still need to decide whether Hemani did that for a particular final conviction. Identify the possible deadline now, even when the answer is not yet settled.
What a court may also have to address
- A previous § 2255 motion. Second or successive motions require special authorization and face strict limits.
- Procedural default. The court may ask why the constitutional issue was not raised earlier.
- A plea or appeal waiver. The exact wording and enforceability of the waiver can matter.
- Different facts. Evidence of addiction, intoxication, violence, or individualized danger may place the case outside Hemani.
No one should possess a firearm to "test" an unsettled constitutional argument. A legal argument is not the same as a court order or a restoration decision.
Can Hemani reopen an old conviction?
A Supreme Court ruling does not automatically remove an old federal judgment. Someone who already has a § 922(g)(3) conviction still needs a valid way to return to court—and that is where custody status, deadlines, prior filings, and plea paperwork start to matter.
The § 2255 clock may be running
A person who is still “in custody” under a federal sentence may be able to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Custody includes imprisonment, but it can also include supervised release.
Section 2255(f)(3) may allow one year from the date the Supreme Court first recognizes a right. There is an important condition: that right must be newly recognized and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
That means June 18, 2027, may become an argued deadline in some Hemani cases, but it is not a guaranteed deadline for everyone. Courts may still need to decide whether Hemani announced a retroactive right that reaches a particular final conviction.
The date is only one piece of the problem. A court may also need to address:
A previous § 2255 motion: Second or successive motions require special authorization and face strict limits.
Procedural default: The court may ask why the constitutional issue was not raised earlier.
A plea or appeal waiver: The exact wording and enforceability of the waiver can matter.
Different facts: Evidence of addiction, intoxication, violence, or individualized danger may place the case outside Hemani.
Waiting for every court to agree on the law can feel safe. It may not be safe if the government later argues that the filing window has closed. The practical move is to identify the possible deadline now, even when the answer is not yet settled.
When the sentence has already ended
Once a federal sentence is fully served, § 2255 is generally unavailable because the person is no longer in custody. A writ of error coram nobis may offer a narrow way to challenge a federal conviction that still causes serious consequences.
Coram nobis is not § 2255 without a deadline. It is an extraordinary remedy, and courts usually require a fundamental error, continuing consequences, and a sound reason the issue was not raised earlier.
It is also not the only door left standing. Depending on the source of the restriction, a person may need to consider the new DOJ program, a pardon, a state-law remedy, or an as-applied constitutional challenge instead.
A felony does not create the same case for everyone
The old shorthand was easy: felony means no gun. The constitutional analysis after Bruen and Rahimi is not that simple—but neither is the opposite claim that every person with a nonviolent felony now has a winning challenge.
In United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit examined the predicate offense and the historical tradition relevant to disarmament. Later cases have continued to test what that approach requires when the conviction is old, nonviolent, or far removed from firearm misuse.
“Nonviolent” is a starting point, not an answer
Two people may both describe their records as nonviolent while presenting very different cases. The statute of conviction, its elements, the sentence, the conduct the court may consider, and any other firearm prohibition can change the analysis.
The original article said Fifth Circuit courts look only at the conviction and never at the conduct behind it. The real law is less tidy.
In United States v. Luna, a 2026 panel decision, the majority focused on the qualifying conviction under existing circuit precedent. A concurring opinion explained that other Fifth Circuit authority may allow courts to consider the conduct underlying that conviction. The disagreement in the published Luna opinion is important because it shows that the evidence a court may consider is itself still contested.
The Fifth Circuit has also granted rehearing en banc in United States v. Squire. When the full court takes a case, it may clarify—or change—the rules panels have been using.
For now, a useful review asks:
What created the prohibition? The exact offense matters more than the label a person gives it.
What procedure is available? A pretrial motion, direct appeal, collateral attack, and civil lawsuit follow different rules.
What record may the court examine? The parties may dispute whether the court is limited to the conviction or may look at underlying conduct.
Does another ban still apply? Probation, supervised release, a protective order, substance use, or state law may create an independent prohibition.
A favorable decision for someone else is not a permission slip. No one should possess a firearm to “test” an unsettled constitutional argument. Relief must come first.
A federal gun charges defense attorney can review the underlying conviction, the specific federal prohibition, current Fifth Circuit law, and any separate state restriction before you make decisions about firearm possession.
The DOJ restoration program brings back an old remedy
Congress created a process in 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) for restoring federal firearm rights. Then, beginning in 1992, it blocked ATF from spending money to investigate or act on ordinary applications. The law survived, but the process stopped working.
DOJ’s 2026 rule moves that responsibility to the Office of the Pardon Attorney. For people who cannot undo the conviction or defeat the prohibition in court, this may be the most practical path: accept that the underlying record remains, but ask the Attorney General to lift the federal firearm disability.
The rollout happens in stages
The final rule was announced on August 17, 2026, published on August 20, and is scheduled to take effect on September 21. DOJ currently lists three opening dates
18 U.S.C. § 925(c) · Office of the Pardon Attorney
Congress created the § 925(c) process, then beginning in 1992 blocked ATF from spending money to act on ordinary applications. The law survived; the process stopped working. DOJ's 2026 rule moves that responsibility to the Office of the Pardon Attorney — the practical path for people who cannot undo the conviction or defeat the prohibition in court.
The rollout happens in stages
Aug 17, 2026
Final rule announced
DOJ announces the final rule.
Aug 20, 2026
Published
The rule is published.
Sep 21, 2026
Takes effect
Scheduled effective date of the rule.
Sep 25, 2026
Invited candidates
Applications open to invited candidates only.
Nov 4, 2026
Public phase opens
Opens to the first 5,000 applicants. The cap makes preparation matter.
Jan 4, 2027
Second public tranche
Another 500 public applicants may apply, and the application fee begins.
Status as of September 17, 2026
The invitation phase has not started, and online Form 1123-0017 is still marked "coming soon." Check the official Federal Firearm Rights Restoration page — rollout details can change. DOJ's rule gives an applicant 30 days to correct an incomplete application after notice; it does not turn an unfinished submission into a strong one.
Presumptions, not waiting lists
No amount of waiting
Presumption never lifts with time
Convictions involving death, sexual assault, human trafficking, kidnapping, domestic violence, burglary, robbery, extortion, carjacking, arson, certain violent racketeering or gang offenses, assault, stalking, terrorism, witness tampering, and specified use of a firearm or explosive during a felony.
10 years
A ten-year period may apply
Drug trafficking, threats of violence, certain explosives or firearm offenses, weapons on school property, animal abuse, and misdemeanor domestic-violence convictions subject to the rule's detailed conditions.
5 years
A five-year period may apply
Generally covers other felonies punishable by more than one year and certain violent misdemeanors outside the higher tiers.
Current status
Status can create its own presumption
Awaiting sentencing, serving a sentence, participating in diversion, being a fugitive, being subject to certain restraining orders, and some immigration or sex-offender-registration statuses.
A presumption is not always an absolute ban, but it can require the applicant to show extraordinary circumstances. Each category has definitions, exceptions, and rules about when the waiting period begins or resets. The program's current-status provision treats marijuana-only unlawful use or addiction differently from other controlled-substance use — that exception affects the administrative presumption; it is not general permission to possess a firearm.
What a felony-based file needs
The Attorney General must be satisfied that the applicant is unlikely to endanger public safety and that relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Meeting the filing requirements gets the application reviewed; it does not guarantee approval.
What restoration changes—and what it leaves behind
A successful § 925(c) application can lift the federal firearm disability covered by the grant. It does not vacate the conviction, seal the court file, or rewrite the person’s criminal history.
It also does not erase a separate state prohibition. Someone may receive federal relief and remain prohibited under Texas law or the law of another state.
Most importantly, restoration is discretionary. The Attorney General must be satisfied that the applicant is unlikely to endanger public safety and that granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Meeting the filing requirements gets the application reviewed; it does not guarantee approval.
The waiting periods are not all the same
The DOJ rule creates presumptions based on the applicant’s offense, conduct, and current status. A presumption is not always an absolute ban, but it can require the applicant to show extraordinary circumstances.
No amount of waiting removes the presumption: This category includes convictions involving death, sexual assault, human trafficking, kidnapping, domestic violence, burglary, robbery, extortion, carjacking, arson, certain violent racketeering or gang offenses, assault, stalking, terrorism, witness tampering, and specified use of a firearm or explosive during a felony.
A 10-year period may apply: This category includes drug trafficking, threats of violence, certain explosives or firearm offenses, weapons on school property, animal abuse, and misdemeanor domestic-violence convictions subject to the rule’s detailed conditions.
A five-year period may apply: This generally covers other felonies punishable by more than one year and certain violent misdemeanors outside the higher tiers.
A current status can create its own presumption: Examples include awaiting sentencing, serving a sentence, participating in diversion, being a fugitive, being subject to certain restraining orders, and some immigration or sex-offender-registration statuses.
These categories have definitions, exceptions, and rules about when the waiting period begins or resets. One notable example is that the program’s current-status provision treats marijuana-only unlawful use or addiction differently from other controlled-substance use. That exception affects the administrative presumption; it is not general permission to possess a firearm.
The current DOJ program rule should control any eligibility review—not a shortened online summary.
DOJ will read the whole file
The conviction may be where the story starts, but it is not where DOJ’s review ends. The rule allows the government to consider criminal history, the seriousness of past conduct, conduct behind charges dismissed as part of a plea, behavior in prison or on supervision, time since sentence completion, substance use, restraining orders, threats, mental health information, and information from local law enforcement.
In other words, DOJ is not reviewing a polished version of the applicant. It is comparing the application with the record it can find. An old arrest or dismissed count may need context, even if it did not produce another conviction.
That makes honesty part of the legal strategy. A false statement or intentional omission can do more than weaken the application—it can void relief obtained through fraud.
Build the paper trail before writing the story
A persuasive explanation cannot replace missing court records. DOJ’s required-documents guidance asks every applicant for some materials and adds others based on the source of the prohibition.
For a felony-based application, the file may need:
Every federal prohibition: List each crime, order, status, or activity that makes the applicant federally prohibited.
Background materials: Provide the required release authorization and electronic fingerprints.
Criminal-history records: Obtain state records for every place the applicant lived and every other place of arrest, covering the shorter of the last 25 years or the period since age 18.
The original case file: Include the charging instrument, judgment, proof that every sentence requirement was completed, and any applicable plea agreement, factual basis, or presentence report.
Earlier relief efforts: Include relevant applications and decisions involving a pardon, expungement, set-aside, or restoration of rights.
Three qualified references: Each person must have known the applicant for at least three years, cannot be related by blood or marriage, and cannot be prohibited under § 922(g).
Different records apply to mental-health adjudications, misdemeanor domestic-violence convictions, military matters, renunciation of citizenship, and events outside the United States. When an official record truly cannot be obtained, the rule allows a sworn statement describing the record and the efforts made to find it.
Start with the documents, then write the explanation around what they actually show. That is safer than building a compelling narrative and discovering later that the official file tells a different version.
Which door may fit your situation?
| Situation | Possible route | The catch |
|---|---|---|
| Final federal § 922(g)(3) conviction while in custody or on supervised release | § 2255 motion based on Hemani | Retroactivity, timeliness, waivers, default, and the facts all require review |
| Federal sentence fully served | Coram nobis may be considered | It is an extraordinary remedy, not a routine late appeal |
| Existing § 922(g)(1) prohibition | As-applied Second Amendment challenge may be considered | Fifth Circuit law is developing, and “nonviolent” does not guarantee relief |
| Valid federal disability remains | § 925(c) administrative application | Relief is discretionary and does not erase the conviction |
| State law independently prohibits possession | A state-law remedy, if available | Federal relief alone does not cancel the state restriction |
The routes can sometimes overlap, but they do different work. A court challenge may attack the conviction or the law as applied; an administrative grant generally leaves the conviction in place and removes only the covered federal disability.
Mistakes that can close the wrong door
Reading Hemani as a blanket marijuana ruling: Its holding is narrower than the headline.
Treating June 18, 2027, as everyone’s deadline: Section 2255(f)(3) depends on a newly recognized right that applies retroactively on collateral review.
Assuming “nonviolent felony” wins the case: The exact offense, evidence, procedure, and latest Fifth Circuit law matter.
Possessing a gun before relief is granted: A legal argument is not the same as a court order or restoration decision.
Ignoring state law: Federal relief can still leave a separate state prohibition in place.
Naming only one disability: DOJ requires a complete list of the federal prohibitions that apply.
Using the wrong references: Relatives, recent acquaintances, and people prohibited under § 922(g) do not meet DOJ’s criteria.
Hiding the difficult parts of the record: DOJ may compare the application with court, law-enforcement, supervision, and other records.
Put the right case through the right door
Federal firearm law turns on details that are easy to miss: the exact subsection, the judgment, the date every part of the sentence ended, prior motions, current status, and state law. Two people who both say, “I lost my gun rights years ago,” may need completely different legal strategies.
At Keith & Lorfing, we focus on West Texas and approach these cases the same way we approach a trial: start with the record, find the rule that actually applies, and prepare for the argument the other side will make. Our team includes former federal and state prosecutors and brings more than 75 years of combined experience and more than 500 jury trials.
We serve clients from offices in Abilene, Lubbock, Midland, and San Angelo. For a free consultation, call Keith & Lorfing at (325) 480-8100.
Do not possess, receive, ship, or transport a firearm or ammunition unless qualified counsel confirms that every applicable federal and state restriction has been removed.
Frequently asked questions
Does Hemani automatically clear a § 922(g)(3) conviction?
No. A final conviction remains in place unless a court grants relief through the correct procedure. Custody status, filing history, plea documents, facts, and timing all affect which procedure may be available.
Is June 18, 2027, the deadline for every Hemani claim?
No. That date may be argued under § 2255(f)(3), but the statute requires a newly recognized right that is retroactive on collateral review. A case may also involve other limitation or procedural issues.
Does an old, nonviolent felony create a strong challenge?
It may deserve review, but age and a “nonviolent” label do not decide the case. The offense, underlying record, current restrictions, and latest Fifth Circuit decisions all matter.
Can someone apply under § 925(c) before finishing a sentence?
The rule allows a federally prohibited person to apply, but serving a sentence creates a presumption against relief unless extraordinary circumstances exist. Timing should be checked against the exact offense and sentence status.
Does federal restoration also restore Texas gun rights?
Not automatically. A § 925(c) grant removes the federal disability covered by the decision. Any independent restriction under Texas or another state’s law requires a separate analysis.
What if an application is incomplete?
DOJ’s rule says the applicant should receive notice and 30 days to correct and resubmit an incomplete application. If the applicant misses that period, DOJ can close the application.
