Some of you may or may not be aware of this, but there are many people in this country who cannot possess firearms due to a non-violent and sometimes victimless felony conviction. Or, the person may have been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution a long time ago in a state that does not have a relief program (Pennsylvania used to be this way until July 1).

From 1968-1986 for just felony convictions not involving violations of the Gun Control Act or National Firearms Act and then from 1986-1992 for all Federal Firearms Disabilities (as a result of the case Galioto v. Department of Treasury, where it was decided that if the government didn't change 925c to allow former mental patients to obtain firearms relief, they would declare the statute unconstitutional as-applied to Mr. Galioto. The government decided to change 925c) 18 USC 925 (c) allowed people with firearms disabilities to apply to the ATF for relief from disability. If it was determined that they would not be likely to act dangerously in a manner to public safety and that granting the relief would not be contrary to the public interest, relief "may" be granted by the Secretary of Treasury.

Unfortunately, some of the people granted firearms relief did commit more crimes after being granted relief, however, a study linked here showed that some people granted pardons by the Governor of Pennsylvania went on to re-offend. This just goes to show that no system is perfect. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publicatio....aspx?id=85112

The violence policy center released a study and demanded that the Federal Firearms Relief program be shut down. Eventually, they succeeded. From October 1992 onwards, the ATF was not allowed to spend any money investigating relief from disability applications.

Unfortunately, there were unforeseen consequences. As the case Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department highlighted, in some states, it is simply impossible for someone subject to the prohibitions of 922 (g)(4) to obtain relief. Currently, forum member (and attorney) SigForLife is arguing a case trying to win back the gun rights of a woman convicted of lying on a tax return. Unfortunately, I do not think he will win based on what I've read in Medina v. Whitaker and Kanter v. Barr.

While every state and the Federal Government does provide an executive clemency mechanism (and some go further and provide a mechanism for non-pardon expungements/set-asides), these are often very difficult to get. Pennsylvania grants them fairly regularly, but at the Federal level, the grant rate is only about 10%. Some of the denials were for non-violent crimes a long time in the past. Also, pardon officials usually do not consider gun rights a compelling need for a pardon.

This is why I propose that the ATF's appropriations bar be changed to this:

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; however, nothing shall preclude an individual from funding his/her own application for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code where the cost to the individual shall not exceed $7500

This isn't cheap but it is certainly cheaper than suing the Attorney General in court as several people have done trying (and failing) to regain their gun rights. Alan Gura, Joshua Prince (SigForLife), Adam Kraut, and all the other lawyers who took on these as-applied challenges must really be making bank. (Except Lucas J. McCarthy, the lawyer in the Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department case; he took it pro-bono).

At least applying for a presidential pardon is still free. I just wish they were granted more often to people who really have turned their lives around.

If I was a firearms attorney (which I may end up being one day), I would advise anyone considering spending the money on an as-applied challenge to apply for a pardon first (and help them with the paperwork for a comparatively small fee) since applying for the pardon is free. Also, the presidential pardon application asks if you've ever been named as a party in a civil lawsuit (plaintiff or defendant) or if you've ever sought restoration of your state or federal gun rights. I really don't like giving people false hope.

This is why we need to ask the members of the Senate and House committee on appropriations, subcommittee on commerce justice and science to allow people to pay a maximum of $7500 to have their firearm rights restored if they can prove that they will not be likely to act dangerously in a manner to public safety and if granting the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.

While the massive amount of gun deaths in this country each year is unacceptable, what is also unacceptable is that we are one of the only countries in the world (Canada doesn't do it, Japan doesn't do it though good luck getting a gun in Japan, most countries in Europe don't do it) to permanently deprive people of firearm rights for non-violent crimes such as:
Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements (31 USC 5324) i.e. writing 5 $9000 checks instead of 1 $45,000 check because you don't want the transaction reported to the government (also completely victimless if unconnected to other criminal activity)
Making a false statement on a tax return (26 USC 7206)
Tax evasion (26 USC 7201)
Insider trading
Lying on a mortgage application (18 USC 1014)
Making ANY false statement on ANY government paperwork (18 USC 1001)
Copying a PO box key (18 USC 1704)
Opening mail that isn't yours (18 USC 1702)

Here are the links to the House subcommittee and the Senate subcommittee:

https://appropriations.house.gov/sub...116th-congress

https://www.appropriations.senate.go...lated-agencies

Contact the Senators/Representatives listed there.

In case any of you are unaware, I am 17 years old, trying to have a 302 commitment from when I was 14 expunged. So I know how it feels not to be able to enjoy this activity that 1: I used to enjoy before my prohibition took effect and 2: Many of you enjoy. With overcriminalization, I fear that one day this right may be taken away from me again if I accidentally violate any of the thousands of criminal statutes on the books. Complying with the law should be as simple as: Don't steal, don't lie, don't hurt people, pay your taxes using this non-complicated form following the non-complicated revenue code. Unfortunately, I know it's never going to be that way.

Anyway, TL: DR we need to act to get 18 USC 925 (c) re-opened by allowing people to pay up to $7500 for their own relief determination. Many district and circuit courts have hinted (usually in their conclusions of opinions) that they want 925 (c) re-opened so that people will have an actual statutory mechanism to restore their firearm rights.