18 USC §922(g):
Federal Prohibited Persons

Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), the following persons are prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition:

• (g)(1): Persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (felons)
• (g)(2): Fugitives from justice. An ATF final rule signed April 29, 2026^[5] narrowed the regulatory definition of "fugitive from justice" to the 1968 Gun Control Act standard: a person who has fled the jurisdiction in which a crime occurred to avoid prosecution or to avoid giving testimony. Under the prior ATF interpretation, the mere existence of an outstanding warrant could trigger the prohibition. The narrowed definition is final and takes effect 60 days after Federal Register publication.
• (g)(3): Persons who are unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance, as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act. ATF narrowed the operational definition of "unlawful user" by Interim Final Rule on January 22, 2026, and on April 29, 2026 proposed (NOT YET FINAL) a further narrowing that would limit the prohibition to persons with one of (a) active impairment at the time of possession, (b) a controlled-substance conviction within the prior 12 months, or (c) a clinical finding of dependence within the prior 12 months. United States v. Hemani is pending at the Supreme Court (oral argument March 2, 2026; decision expected by June 2026). See the marijuana and firearms federal-state conflict guide for detail on how this affects Massachusetts medical and adult-use cannabis users.
• (g)(4): Persons adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
• (g)(5): Persons who are illegal or unlawful aliens, or who have been admitted under a nonimmigrant visa (with limited exceptions)
• (g)(6): Persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
• (g)(7): Persons who have renounced United States citizenship
• (g)(8): Persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders
• (g)(9): Persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

United States v. Rahimi: Supreme Court Upholds 922(g)(8) (June 2024)

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in United States v. Rahimi ^[4], upholding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) -- the prohibition on firearm possession by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion.

The case arose after the Fifth Circuit had struck down 922(g)(8), holding that the government failed to identify a historical analogue precisely matching the modern restraining order framework. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may -- consistent with the Second Amendment -- be prohibited from possessing firearms while the order is in effect.

Critically, Rahimi clarified the Bruen framework. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that courts should not treat Bruen as requiring a "historical twin" for every modern firearms regulation. Instead, courts must look for historical regulations that are "relevantly similar" to the challenged law, examining whether the modern law addresses a comparable problem and uses a comparable means. This more flexible reading of Bruen has significant implications for Second Amendment challenges nationwide, including pending cases affecting Massachusetts firearms law.

For Massachusetts firearms owners, Rahimi reinforces that the 922(g)(8) prohibition remains constitutionally valid. Persons subject to a qualifying abuse prevention order under MGL c.209A are prohibited from possessing firearms under both federal law and Massachusetts's parallel state provisions, which require license suspension and immediate firearm surrender when an abuse prevention order issues.

Relief from Disability (2026 Update)

18 U.S.C. 925(c) authorizes the Attorney General to grant relief from federal firearm disabilities to applicants who demonstrate that they are not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Congress had blocked ATF's funding to process Section 925(c) applications every year since 1992, leaving the relief pathway dormant for individual applicants for more than three decades.

An ATF final rule package signed April 29, 2026^[5] implemented Executive Order 14206 by transferring relief-from-disability authority from ATF to the Department of Justice and establishing an online restoration portal^[6]. The transfer revives the Section 925(c) pathway as an active administrative remedy. Applicants must demonstrate the statutory criteria; relief is discretionary and case-specific. Final rules are effective 60 days after Federal Register publication.

The 2026 federal changes do not affect Massachusetts state-law prohibitions. A Massachusetts resident granted federal relief under Section 925(c) would still be barred from holding an LTC or FID if a state-law disqualifier under MGL Chapter 140, Sections 129B or 131 applies. Massachusetts maintains its own relief mechanism through the Firearms Licensing Review Board (see Massachusetts Cross-Reference and Expansion below), and FLRB jurisdiction is independent of any federal restoration. Persons seeking to restore both federal and state firearm rights generally must pursue both pathways.

Massachusetts Cross-Reference and Expansion

Massachusetts's prohibited persons framework at MGL Chapter 140, Sections 129B and 131 ^[2] incorporates the federal 18 USC 922(g) categories by reference and layers additional state-level prohibitions on top of them. Massachusetts disqualifiers that go beyond federal law include:

• Persons under 21 years of age (an LTC may be issued to 18-20 year olds with restrictions only where state law permits)
• Persons who have been treated for or confined to a facility for alcohol abuse or substance-use disorder, absent a court-ordered exemption
• Persons who have been the subject of a final involuntary commitment to a mental health facility under MGL c.123
• Persons against whom a MGL c.209A abuse prevention order or a c.258E harassment prevention order has issued
• Persons determined by the licensing authority not to be a "suitable person" under the MGL c.140 s.131 suitability standard
• Persons subject to an extreme risk protection order under MGL c.140 ss.131R through 131Y

The Firearms Licensing Review Board (FLRB), established under Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004, hears petitions for relief from certain firearms disabilities. Not every federal 922(g) disqualifier has a corresponding state pathway to relief, and applicants should consult counsel before relying on FLRB jurisdiction.

Federal Penalties

Violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is a federal felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison (increased from 10 years by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 for persons with three or more prior convictions for violent felonies or drug trafficking offenses). In United States v. Range ^[3] (2023), the Third Circuit held that 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to a person convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor punishable by more than one year, though this decision is limited to the Third Circuit.

Massachusetts Enforcement Mechanism

Massachusetts has no equivalent to California's Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS). Instead, the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) maintains the MIRCS Unified Gun Portal (launched under Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024) which cross-references licensing data with criminal history, civil commitment, and protection-order records. When a licensee becomes prohibited -- for example, upon entry of a c.209A order or a disqualifying conviction -- the licensing authority is notified and the LTC or FID is subject to immediate suspension or revocation under MGL c.140 s.129D. Firearms must be surrendered to law enforcement or transferred to a licensed dealer within the timeframe ordered by the court or licensing authority.