Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 10, 2026
A Procedure to Study Stress-Induced Relapse of Heroin Seeking after Punishment-Imposed Abstinence
Published on: March 23, 2022
Firearm rights restoration after prohibiting criminal convictions: a statewide descriptive study
Julie M Kafka1,2, Alice M Ellyson3,4, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar3,5
1Firearm Injury Prevention Initiative, Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. Julie.kafka@cuanschutz.edu.
Background:
In the US, federal law prohibits firearm possession and purchasing for individuals with convictions for a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor. If a prohibiting conviction occurred in a state court, then state law dictates how/when a prohibited person can later have their firearm rights reinstated. To our knowledge, there is limited empirical research documenting the frequency and characteristics of individuals who receive firearm rights restoration (FRR). Research is needed to guide policy, balancing the need to prioritize public safety while also fairly re-instating rights for formerly convicted individuals. We sought to address this research gap by examining FRR data from Washington state (2017-2022). During this time period, FRR granting was largely procedural (i.e., non-discretionary).
Methods:
We used data from Washington State Patrol to identify who received FRR statewide. We linked these data to prior criminal convictions, arrests, and protection orders to understand the person's characteristics and violent behaviors prior to FRR.
Results:
We identified n = 11,516 individuals in the state of Washington who received FRR over the six-year study period (~ 1,900 people annually). FRR recipients were mostly male (88.4%, n = 10,182) and majority White (84.2%, n = 9697). Half (51.4%, n = 5921) had a prior conviction for a violent crime. On average, 15.3 years (sd: 6.1, median: 15.0) had elapsed between the last prohibiting conviction and FRR. In the 5 years prior to FRR, 710 individuals had been arrested, and 200 had been restrained in a protection order.
Conclusions:
By understanding who receives FRR and how often, this research helps lay the foundation to improve our understanding of FRR legal practices. Our findings suggest that variability within the population of prohibited individuals could help inform FRR eligibility considerations to meet the goals of both preventing firearm violence and equitably re-instating rights to formerly convicted individuals.
