34 U.S.C. § 40915
Relief from disabilities program required as condition for participation in grant programs
If, under a State relief from disabilities program implemented in accordance with this section, an application for relief referred to in subsection (a)(1) of this section is granted with respect to an adjudication or a commitment to a mental institution or based upon a removal of a record under section 40912(c)(1)(B) of this title, the adjudication or commitment, as the case may be, is deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18.
Section was formerly classified in a note under section 922 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: Duy Mai v. United States, 952 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020).
Duy Mai v. United States, 952 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020). “Plaintiff’s second potential avenue for relief is through a state program that qualifies under 34 U.S.C. § 40915 . To qualify, the state’s program must “permit[] a person who, pursuant to State law, .”
Jefferies v. Sessions, 278 F. Supp. 3d 831 (E.D. Pa. 2017). “34 U.S.C. § 40915 (a)(2). . Id. . See Keyes v.”
Clifton v. United States Dep't of Just. (E.D. Cal. 2022). “8 Second, the states may establish programs under 34 U.S.C. § 40915 to provide 9 opportunities for relief from the prohibition imposed by § 922(g)(4).”
K.I. (N.D.N.Y. 2026). “See Susman, 2025 WL 575515 , at *12 (quoting 34 U.S.C. § 40915 ). In sum, § 922(g)(4) would continue to disarm Plaintiff even if this Court enjoined MHL § 7.”
In re N.S. (Iowa 2024). “31 adopted verbatim the proof requirements from the federal act, 34 U.S.C. § 40915 , that conditioned funding on use of its language.”
In re N.S. (Iowa 2024). “31 adopted verbatim the proof requirements from the federal act, 34 U.S.C. § 40915 , that conditioned funding on use of its language.”
Susman (W.D.N.Y. 2026). “See NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 § 105 (codified at 34 U.S.C. § 40915 ). 5 Congress passed the law in response to two mass shootings—including one at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (“Virginia Tech”).”
Stokes v. U.S. Dep't of Just. (N.D. Cal. 2021). “” Since 1992, however, Congress has prohibited the use of funds to act on such 1 the states may establish programs under 34 U.S.C. § 40915 to provide opportunity for relief 2 from the ban of Section 922(g)(4).”
J.M.P., Jr. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2024). “§ 40913 (implementation assistance to the states); (4) 34 U.S.C. § 40915 (relief from disabilities program required as condition for participation in grant programs); (5) TEX.”
Roe 1 v. United States (E.D. Cal. 2021). “Currently, any state program that qualifies 23 under 34 U.S.C. § 40915 may provide relief from the disabilities imposed by federal law with 24 respect to the possession of firearms.”
In re N.F. (Iowa 2025). “3d 811, 834 (Iowa 2024) (discussing 34 U.S.C. § 40915 ). One of those conditions was that the program had to “permit[] a person whose application for the relief is denied to file a petition with the State court of appropriate jurisdiction for a de novo judicial review of the…”
United States v. James Gould (4th Cir. 2025). “See 34 U.S.C. § 40915 . 4 A state’s process suffices if it (1) allows a person to apply for relief (2) before a state court, board, or commission that will determine—consistent with principles of due process—whether “the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to…”
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.