28 C.F.R. § 25.10

Correction of erroneous system information

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) An individual may request the reason for the denial from the agency that conducted the check of the NICS (the “denying agency,” which will be either the FBI or the state or local law enforcement agency serving as a POC). The FFL will provide to the denied individual the name and address of the denying agency and the unique transaction number (NTN or STN) associated with the NICS background check. The request for the reason for the denial must be made in writing to the denying agency. (POCs at their discretion may waive the requirement for a written request.)

(b) The denying agency will respond to the individual with the reasons for the denial within five business days of its receipt of the individual's request. The response should indicate whether additional information or documents are required to support an appeal, such as fingerprints in appeals involving questions of identity (i.e., a claim that the record in question does not pertain to the individual who was denied).

(c) If the individual wishes to challenge the accuracy of the record upon which the denial is based, or if the individual wishes to assert that his or her rights to possess a firearm have been restored, he or she may make application first to the denying agency, i.e., either the FBI or the POC. If the denying agency is unable to resolve the appeal, the denying agency will so notify the individual and shall provide the name and address of the agency that originated the document containing the information upon which the denial was based. The individual may then apply for correction of the record directly to the agency from which it originated. If the record is corrected as a result of the appeal to the originating agency, the individual may so notify the denying agency, which will, in turn, verify the record correction with the originating agency (assuming the originating agency has not already notified the denying agency of the correction) and take all necessary steps to correct the record in the NICS.

(d) As an alternative to the above procedure where a POC was the denying agency, the individual may elect to direct his or her challenge to the accuracy of the record, in writing, to the FBI, NICS Operations Center, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Module C-3, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306-0147. Upon receipt of the information, the FBI will investigate the matter by contacting the POC that denied the transaction or the data source. The FBI will request the POC or the data source to verify that the record in question pertains to the individual who was denied, or to verify or correct the challenged record. The FBI will consider the information it receives from the individual and the response it receives from the POC or the data source. If the record is corrected as a result of the challenge, the FBI shall so notify the individual, correct the erroneous information in the NICS, and give notice of the error to any Federal department or agency or any state that was the source of such erroneous records.

(e) Upon receipt of notice of the correction of a contested record from the originating agency, the FBI or the agency that contributed the record shall correct the data in the NICS and the denying agency shall provide a written confirmation of the correction of the erroneous data to the individual for presentation to the FFL. If the appeal of a contested record is successful and thirty (30) days or less have transpired since the initial check, and there are no other disqualifying records upon which the denial was based, the NICS will communicate a “Proceed” response to the FFL. If the appeal is successful and more than thirty (30) days have transpired since the initial check, the FFL must recheck the NICS before allowing the sale to continue. In cases where multiple disqualifying records are the basis for the denial, the individual must pursue a correction for each record.

(f) An individual may also contest the accuracy or validity of a disqualifying record by bringing an action against the state or political subdivision responsible for providing the contested information, or responsible for denying the transfer, or against the United States, as the case may be, for an order directing that the contested information be corrected or that the firearm transfer be approved.

(g) An individual may provide written consent to the FBI to maintain information about himself or herself in a Voluntary Appeal File to be established by the FBI and checked by the NICS for the purpose of preventing the future erroneous denial or extended delay by the NICS of a firearm transfer. Such file shall be used only by the NICS for this purpose. The FBI shall remove all information in the Voluntary Appeal File pertaining to an individual upon receipt of a written request by that individual. However, the FBI may retain such information contained in the Voluntary Appeal File as long as needed to pursue cases of identified misuse of the system. If the FBI finds a disqualifying record on the individual after his or her entry into the Voluntary Appeal File, the FBI may remove the individual's information from the file.

[Order No. 2186-98, 63 FR 58307, Oct. 30, 1998, as amended by Order No. 2727-2004, 69 FR 43901, July 23, 2004]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Bankston v. Then, 615 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 2010).
Bankston v. Then, 615 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 2010). “See 28 C.F.R. § 25.10 . This makes sense: because a dealer is never told the reason for the non-approval, only the individual purchaser would know his criminal history and be able to challenge his status.”
Cioffi v. Ingram (E.D.N.C. 2021). · cites it 6× “28 C.F.R. § 25.10 Defendant Ingram contends that “[i]n her Response, Plaintiff intimates, for the first time, that her action is not advanced under 42 U.”
Sharon Briseno v. Ann Marie T. Sullivan, in her Off. Capacity, Li-Wen Grace Lee, M.D., Individually, Carmen Barber, (N.D.N.Y. 2026). · cites it 5× “§ 925A and 28 C.F.R. § 25.10 when they failed to amend and/or remove her information from the OMH, DCJS, and NICS databases (Count 5).”
Mach v. Garland (E.D. Ky. 2025). · cites it 4× “§ 925A and 28 C.F.R. § 25.10 ) and for as applied challenges under the Second and Fifth Amendments.”
Escamilla v. United States (E.D. Wis. 2022). · cites it 3× “In support of its argument, Defendant cites 28 C.F.R. § 25.10 , which sets out a procedure for an individual who is erroneously denied a firearm as a prohibited person to seek correction of the erroneous information upon which the denial is based by directly contacting the FBI…”
Tamez v. Fed. Bureau of Investigations (D. Ariz. 2024). · cites it 3× “See 28 C.F.R. § 25.10 . An individual may request the 20 reason for the denial from the agency that conducted the background check, here, the FBI.”
Cusick v. U.S. Dep't of Just. (D. Maryland 2023). · cites it 2× “See NICS Appeal Guide; 28 C.F.R. § 25.10 . Accordingly, such an appeal was not necessary to render the auto-denial a final agency action.”
Snyder v. United States of Am. (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “17 Moreover, 28 C.F.R. § 25.10 , also provides that: 18 An individual may also contest the accuracy or validity of a disqualifying record by bringing an action against the state or political subdivision 19 responsible for providing the contested information, or responsible for…”
Sedita v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2025). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 25.10 (c)–(d). Challenges focus on specific denials of a firearm.”
Cunningham v. Kahler (W.D. Mo. 2024). “28 C.F.R. § 25.10 (c) (emphasis added). In fact, the cases located by this Court which have considered denials of firearm purchases based upon expunged offenses pursuant to 18 U.”
Kaszycki v. United States of Am. (W.D. Wash. 2020). “28 C.F.R. § 25.10 (a) and (d). 13 However, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, certain types of firearms controlled by 14 the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) must have ATF approval and require payment of a tax 15 before they may be transferred or made.”
Elgersma v. NICS (D. Minnesota 2025). “(citing 28 C.F.R. § 25.10 (g)). The UPIN helps prevent future erroneous denials (or delays) because it allows NICS to automatically refer to a previously conducted investigation.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 25.10(c) — 1 case
Snyder v. United States of Am. (W.D. Wash. 2019). “17 Moreover, 28 C.F.R. § 25.10 , also provides that: 18 An individual may also contest the accuracy or validity of a disqualifying record by bringing an action against the state or political subdivision 19 responsible for providing the contested information, or responsible for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.