Arizona Firearm Rights for Federal Convictions
Firearm Restoration Strategy for Arizona Residents with Federal Convictions
Why should an Arizona resident with a federal conviction pursue relief under Arizona law while federal 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) relief is still pending rulemaking?
The answer is grounded in risk management, statutory structure, and practical legal strategy.
1. Arizona Independently Controls Prohibited Possessor Status
Under A.R.S. § 13-3101(A)(7)(b), a person is a prohibited possessor if they have been convicted of a felony and their civil right to possess or carry a firearm has not been restored. The statute does not exclude federal convictions. Without relief under A.R.S. § 13-907, the individual remains a prohibited possessor under Arizona law and risks prosecution under A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4), a Class 4 felony.
A pending federal rulemaking under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) has no present effect on Arizona’s statutory definition. Until Arizona restores the right to possess firearms, state-level criminal exposure remains.
2. The Federal 925(c) Process Is Not Yet Operational
Although the Department of Justice has announced efforts to reestablish a 925(c) relief process, no final rule has been published, no adjudication standards have been finalized, and no enforceable timeline exists. Historically, Congress prohibited funding for ATF review of 925(c) applications beginning in 1992, and the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002), confirmed that courts cannot grant relief absent agency action.
Waiting on a federal administrative process that has been dormant for over three decades introduces uncertainty without providing immediate protection.
3. Arizona Relief Eliminates Immediate State Criminal Exposure
If an Arizona resident possesses a firearm without relief under A.R.S. § 13-907, they face potential state felony prosecution. Securing Arizona restoration immediately removes that exposure under state law. While federal restrictions may remain pending federal relief, eliminating state criminal liability materially reduces overall legal risk.
4. Arizona Relief Strengthens a Future Federal Application
If and when the federal 925(c) process becomes operational, applicants must demonstrate that they are not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest.
An Arizona Superior Court order restoring firearm rights under A.R.S. § 13-907 provides documented judicial review, evidence of rehabilitation, and confirmation of sentence completion. This record strengthens any future federal application by demonstrating formal state-level restoration and responsible conduct.
5. Federal Relief May Not Automatically Resolve Arizona Status
There is no controlling Arizona appellate authority establishing that future 925(c) relief will automatically satisfy Arizona’s prohibited possessor statute. Absent clear precedent, relying solely on anticipated federal relief could create ambiguity under Arizona law. Obtaining restoration under A.R.S. § 13-907 removes that uncertainty.
6. Layered Relief Is a Lower-Risk Strategy
From a strategic standpoint:
• Waiting for 925(c) relief provides no immediate state protection.
• Obtaining Arizona relief now removes state criminal exposure.
• Pursuing both remedies, when available, creates layered protection and the strongest legal position.
Conclusion
Pursuing relief under A.R.S. § 13-907 while federal 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) rulemaking remains pending is a risk-reduction strategy. Arizona independently defines prohibited possessor status, and until firearm rights are restored under Arizona law, state criminal exposure remains. Securing state restoration now provides immediate legal clarity, reduces criminal liability risk, and strengthens any future federal application. Waiting for an uncertain federal administrative process offers no comparable benefit.
Why should an Arizona resident with a federal conviction pursue relief under Arizona law while federal 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) relief is still pending rulemaking?
The answer is grounded in risk management, statutory structure, and practical legal strategy.
1. Arizona Independently Controls Prohibited Possessor Status
Under A.R.S. § 13-3101(A)(7)(b), a person is a prohibited possessor if they have been convicted of a felony and their civil right to possess or carry a firearm has not been restored. The statute does not exclude federal convictions. Without relief under A.R.S. § 13-907, the individual remains a prohibited possessor under Arizona law and risks prosecution under A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4), a Class 4 felony.
A pending federal rulemaking under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) has no present effect on Arizona’s statutory definition. Until Arizona restores the right to possess firearms, state-level criminal exposure remains.
2. The Federal 925(c) Process Is Not Yet Operational
Although the Department of Justice has announced efforts to reestablish a 925(c) relief process, no final rule has been published, no adjudication standards have been finalized, and no enforceable timeline exists. Historically, Congress prohibited funding for ATF review of 925(c) applications beginning in 1992, and the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002), confirmed that courts cannot grant relief absent agency action.
Waiting on a federal administrative process that has been dormant for over three decades introduces uncertainty without providing immediate protection.
3. Arizona Relief Eliminates Immediate State Criminal Exposure
If an Arizona resident possesses a firearm without relief under A.R.S. § 13-907, they face potential state felony prosecution. Securing Arizona restoration immediately removes that exposure under state law. While federal restrictions may remain pending federal relief, eliminating state criminal liability materially reduces overall legal risk.
4. Arizona Relief Strengthens a Future Federal Application
If and when the federal 925(c) process becomes operational, applicants must demonstrate that they are not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest.
An Arizona Superior Court order restoring firearm rights under A.R.S. § 13-907 provides documented judicial review, evidence of rehabilitation, and confirmation of sentence completion. This record strengthens any future federal application by demonstrating formal state-level restoration and responsible conduct.
5. Federal Relief May Not Automatically Resolve Arizona Status
There is no controlling Arizona appellate authority establishing that future 925(c) relief will automatically satisfy Arizona’s prohibited possessor statute. Absent clear precedent, relying solely on anticipated federal relief could create ambiguity under Arizona law. Obtaining restoration under A.R.S. § 13-907 removes that uncertainty.
6. Layered Relief Is a Lower-Risk Strategy
From a strategic standpoint:
• Waiting for 925(c) relief provides no immediate state protection.
• Obtaining Arizona relief now removes state criminal exposure.
• Pursuing both remedies, when available, creates layered protection and the strongest legal position.
Conclusion
Pursuing relief under A.R.S. § 13-907 while federal 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) rulemaking remains pending is a risk-reduction strategy. Arizona independently defines prohibited possessor status, and until firearm rights are restored under Arizona law, state criminal exposure remains. Securing state restoration now provides immediate legal clarity, reduces criminal liability risk, and strengthens any future federal application. Waiting for an uncertain federal administrative process offers no comparable benefit.
Payment options available.
*Legal Services provided by Rising Phoenix Law Group under contract with Restore My Civil Rights.