Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), any person convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison is barred from possessing, receiving, shipping, or transporting firearms or ammunition. The trigger is the maximum sentence the law authorized for the offense, not the sentence the judge handed down. Since the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022, a standard violation carries up to 15 years in federal prison.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. 922 – Unlawful Acts
Who the Prohibition Covers
The test is what the statute authorized, not what happened at sentencing. If your crime of conviction could have been punished by more than a year in prison, you are a prohibited person, even if you received probation, a suspended sentence, or no jail time at all.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. 922 – Unlawful Acts
The law makes no distinction between violent and nonviolent offenses. A tax fraud conviction disqualifies the same as an assault conviction. Age of the conviction does not matter either: a case from decades ago still triggers the ban unless it has been formally set aside, expunged, or pardoned with firearm rights restored. State and federal convictions both count, so long as the authorized prison term exceeds one year.
State labels can mislead. Some states call an offense a misdemeanor while authorizing a sentence above one year; that conviction still triggers the federal ban because federal law looks at authorized time, not the state’s classification. A state felony capped at exactly one year would not trigger it.
Convictions That Do Not Count
Federal law carves out a narrow set of offenses from the definition of a disabling conviction, even when the sentence threshold is technically met.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 921 – Definitions
Convictions for antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, and similar business-regulation offenses do not qualify, regardless of the authorized sentence. State misdemeanors punishable by two years or less also fall outside the definition, even where the maximum sentence exceeds one year.
A conviction that has been expunged, set aside, or followed by a pardon or restoration of civil rights is generally excluded as well. The catch: if the pardon, expungement, or restoration order specifically says the person may not possess firearms, the conviction still counts.
What Counts as Possession
The prohibition reaches more than carrying a gun. A prohibited person violates 922(g)(1) by possessing, receiving, shipping, or transporting any firearm or ammunition connected to interstate or foreign commerce.
Possession does not require physically holding the weapon. Courts recognize constructive possession, which means knowledge of the firearm plus the ability to exercise control over it. A gun in a bedroom closet, in a car you regularly drive, or in a storage unit you rent can establish constructive possession if evidence links you to it. Mere presence of a gun in a shared space is not enough by itself; prosecutors have to show awareness and some degree of control.
Receipt through any channel counts, including purchase, gift, and inheritance. Federal law separately makes it a crime to sell or transfer a firearm to someone you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited, so both sides of an unlawful transfer face criminal exposure.
Ammunition alone triggers the ban. A single round is enough.3Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Identify Prohibited Persons
What the Government Must Prove
To convict under 922(g)(1), the government must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: a prior qualifying conviction, knowing possession of a firearm or ammunition, and that the firearm or ammunition had at some point traveled in interstate or foreign commerce. Because almost every commercially manufactured firearm crosses state lines at some point in production or distribution, the commerce element is rarely a serious hurdle for prosecutors.
The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rehaif v. United States added another element. Prosecutors must also prove the defendant knew they belonged to the prohibited category, meaning for 922(g)(1) they knew of their status as a convicted felon. That knowledge requirement has opened a real defense for people who reasonably believed their conviction had been expunged or their rights restored.
Penalties
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 raised the standard maximum for a 922(g) violation from 10 to 15 years in federal prison.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 924 – Penalties
Repeat offenders face far harsher exposure under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Someone who violates 922(g) with three or more prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on separate occasions faces a mandatory minimum of 15 years. The court cannot suspend the sentence or grant probation. Because the standard maximum and the ACCA minimum are the same number, defendants who trigger ACCA effectively face 15 years to life.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. 924 – Penalties
Fines for an individual can reach $250,000.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. 3571 – Sentence of Fine Supervised release follows the prison term and can run up to five years for the most serious felony classifications, with typical conditions including regular reporting to a probation officer and travel restrictions.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. 3583 – Inclusion of a Term of Supervised Release After Imprisonment
Sentences move up or down based on aggravating and mitigating factors. Possession of multiple firearms, involvement in drug trafficking, or use of a weapon during another offense all push sentences higher under the federal sentencing guidelines. Cooperation and acceptance of responsibility can bring them down, though judges have less flexibility once a mandatory minimum applies.
Immigration Consequences for Non-Citizens
A 922(g)(1) conviction is classified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. For a non-citizen, that classification is often more consequential than the prison term. It makes the person deportable, permanently inadmissible if removed, disqualified from most immigration relief including asylum and cancellation of removal, and permanently ineligible for U.S. citizenship. Any non-citizen facing 922(g)(1) charges should treat the immigration exposure as a central issue in the case.
Restoring Firearm Rights
Getting rights back after a 922(g)(1) prohibition is difficult but not always impossible. The available routes depend on whether the disqualifying conviction was state or federal.
State Convictions
Federal law provides that a conviction will not count as disqualifying if the person has been pardoned, had the conviction expunged or set aside, or had civil rights restored, unless the restoration expressly prohibits firearm possession.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 921 – Definitions For state convictions, state-level relief is the main path.
The options vary. Some states allow petitions for expungement or set-aside orders that effectively erase the conviction for federal purposes. Others provide gubernatorial pardons that restore civil rights, including firearm rights. Federal appellate courts have generally required a state restoration to cover three core rights before it lifts the federal prohibition: the right to vote, the right to serve on a jury, and the right to hold public office. People convicted in states that do not offer a mechanism to restore all three are in a difficult position, as courts have found they simply cannot qualify for federal restoration through state processes.
Federal Relief Under 925(c)
Federal law authorizes the Attorney General to grant relief from firearms disabilities if the applicant shows they are unlikely to endanger public safety and that relief would not be contrary to the public interest.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. 925 – Exceptions: Relief From Disabilities The program sat dormant for more than three decades because Congress attached a recurring rider to annual appropriations bills prohibiting ATF from spending any funds to investigate or process these applications.9Federal Register. Withdrawing the Attorney General’s Delegation of Authority
In 2025, the Department of Justice found a workaround. The Attorney General withdrew the delegation of authority from ATF and began processing 925(c) applications directly through the Attorney General’s office. Because the appropriations rider specifically restricts ATF, routing the applications through the Attorney General sidesteps it. In March 2025, the Attorney General granted relief to a group of individuals under this revived process.10Federal Register. Granting of Relief; Federal Firearms Privileges Whether the path stays open depends on future administrations and whether Congress modifies or removes the rider.
A presidential pardon can also lift the federal prohibition entirely. Pardons are rarely granted and require a lengthy petition through the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Second Amendment Challenges After Bruen
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen reshaped how courts evaluate gun laws, requiring the government to show that a firearm restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. That framework has produced a wave of challenges to 922(g)(1).
The most notable is Range v. Attorney General (2023), where the Third Circuit held 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to a man whose only disqualifying conviction was a nonviolent offense involving a false statement to obtain food stamps. The court found the government could not demonstrate a historical tradition of permanently disarming people convicted of such minor, nonviolent crimes. Other circuits have reached different conclusions, and the Supreme Court has not yet resolved the split.
Most federal courts continue to uphold 922(g)(1) as applied to people with convictions for violent crimes or serious drug offenses, finding ample historical precedent for disarming dangerous individuals. As-applied challenges have a better chance for people with old, nonviolent convictions than for those with violent histories, but the law remains unsettled and varies by circuit.