admin
The Justice Department quietly moved to restore federal firearm rights for a small group of people under a revived statutory process, and conservatives should pay attention. In a recent Federal Register notice and a final rule, Attorney General Todd Blanche re‑started the long‑dormant 18 U.S.C. §925(c) pathway and listed nine people who have had their federal gun privileges returned. The office that will now handle applications is the Office of the Pardon Attorney, not the ATF.
What the DOJ actually did
The department published a final rule setting criteria and procedures for applications under 18 U.S.C. §925(c). That rule establishes how people whose federal gun rights were lost after convictions can seek restoration. The Federal Register notice names the individuals who were granted relief and is signed by Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter. Department officials say this restores a “functioning” process that had been practically frozen for decades.
Who got their rights back — and why this raised eyebrows
The notice lists eight people granted relief in one batch and a ninth in a later action. One of the names flagged in reporting is Edmund Arthur Matricardi III, who pleaded guilty years ago for illegally listening to and sharing contents of political phone calls about redistricting. Attorney General Todd Blanche said he reviewed the files and is satisfied the named individuals “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.” U.S. Pardon Attorney Edward Martin said the office has worked to build a pathway for people who have lost Second Amendment rights.
Why conservatives should both cheer and scrutinize
Conservatives defend the Second Amendment and believe in second chances. Restoring rights to law‑abiding, rehabilitated citizens fits that view. But there is a big caveat: the Federal Register notice gives very little case‑specific reasoning. The statute requires the Attorney General to publish reasons when relief is granted. If the goal is to restore rights fairly and win public trust, the department should show its work — not hide behind a one‑line announcement. Otherwise critics on both sides will make hay: opponents will say the process is too lax; civil‑liberty types will worry about secret criteria.
What to watch next
Congressional oversight and public records requests should follow. DOJ needs to release the decision memoranda or at least redacted explanations so Americans can see why certain people were chosen. Expect litigation and political pushback, especially from groups worried about domestic violence and public safety. At the same time, pro‑freedom conservatives should press for a transparent, consistent process that respects rehabilitation without sacrificing safety. If you believe in the Second Amendment, support restoring rights — but only if the department proves it did so responsibly.
