Department of Justice Finalizes Rule on Restoring Gun Rights
A finalized rule enables individuals with criminal convictions to apply to restore firearm rights.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 17, 2026, 4:53 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 17, 2026, 4:53 p.m. ETFirst report
Justice Department Finalizes Rule on Restoring Firearm Rights
The Justice Department has finalized a rule creating an application process that allows people barred from owning firearms because of criminal convictions to apply to have their gun rights restored, abc7.com reported. According to abc7.com, the application process will use a new online portal. Grants will be made on a case-by-case basis depending on a person's record and reputation, as well as whether they pose a likely threat to public safety.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 219 Aug 2026, 02:25current
Updated story to incorporate reporting from fox5ny.com and properly lead with best-supported agency attributions.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 01:00
First published.
- Version 117 Aug 2026, 20:53current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.