Gun Laws And 2a
NRA-ILA Files Comments on DOJ’s Relief from Disabilities Rulemaking
NRA-ILA Files Comments on DOJ’s Relief from Disabilities Rulemaking
📅
✍️By ZRIntel Editorial Team📍Washington, D.C.
On October 23, 2025, the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) submitted its comments on a proposed rulemaking by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that seeks to revive the governments "relief from disabilities" program. This program is aimed at individuals who are otherwise prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms due to various legal restrictions from criminal convictions or other federal disabilities. Under the proposed rule, these individuals would have the opportunity to petition the Office of the Pardon Attorney within the DOJ to have their disabilities removed. Historically, this relief program has existed under federal statute but has faced roadblocks due to funding cuts enacted since 1992, primarily impacting the administration of the program which was once managed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Earlier this year, the Trump administration took steps to revive the program by withdrawing its prior delegation to the ATF, which has cleared the path for the Office of the Pardon Attorney to handle application reviews. The latest proposal concerns the standards and procedures under which these applications would be considered. In their comments, the NRA-ILA expressed strong support for the revival of the program while suggesting critical improvements to the DOJ's framework. They pointed out several features of the proposal that exceed the boundaries of what is authorized under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). The ILA expressed concern over the introduction of broad categories of ineligibility based on presumption rather than individual assessment. They also noted the proposal's introduction of variable fees and unnecessary authority bestowed upon the Attorney General (AG), which could lead to potential abuses by future administrations. One key highlight from the NRA-ILA comments revolved around the Supreme Courts decision in U.S. v. Rahimi (2024), which emphasized a judicial finding of dangerousness as a basis for restricting Second Amendment rights. Many of the offenses cited in the proposed rule, however, pertain to non-violent or victimless crimes, calling into question the justification for disqualification under such circumstances. Additionally, the comments took aim at the sources cited within the proposal, suggesting that the authors relied on biased advocacy from groups such as the Violence Policy Center, indicating that their assessment lacks impartiality and scientific rigor. Even more troubling was the finding that those who had received relief did not tend to violently reoffend. Furthermore, the NRA-ILA underscored a critical distinction between handling cases involving dangerous individuals and those with non-violent offenses, particularly emphasizing that convictions should not automatically lead to a permanent loss of Second Amendment rights, especially when the crimes are dated and the individuals show no pattern of recidivism. The ILA highlighted that the administrative hurdles outlined in the proposal bear a close resemblance to extensive and often overreaching concealed carry licensing regimes, which can deter eligible applicants from seeking relief. Provisions like open-ended requirements for character references and medical certifications raise the stakes unnecessarily when it comes to navigating the application process. One of their final proposals urged the DOJ to adopt corrective measures ensuring regular updates to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database upon granting relief and emphasized the need for timely action on applications to prevent delays reminiscent of concealed carry licensing wait times prevalent in various jurisdictions. Ultimately, the NRA-ILA believes that DOJs proposed rule, while not without its issues, demonstrates a significant movement toward affirming Second Amendment rights, ensuring that these rights are honored rather than relegated to second-class status. The organization looks forward to the final rule's publication and the DOJ's responsiveness to the influx of comments from concerned citizens advocating for pro-freedom reforms. #