Cresus casino argent fictif jouez sans risque 1

З Cresus casino argent fictif jouez sans risque

Découvrez le casino Cresus avec un argent fictif pour tester vos compétences sans risque. Expérience réaliste, jeux variés et interface intuitive pour s’amuser en toute liberté.

Cresus casino argent fictif jouez sans risque et testez vos compétences

Je suis passé par des centaines de plateformes. Cette fois, j’ai testé une version sans risque – et j’ai pas vu le temps passer. (Je me suis même fait une tasse de café en plein milieu d’un round de free spins.)

Le RTP est à 96,7%. Pas une légende, mais stable. Volatilité moyenne, donc pas de montagnes russes, mais pas de chutes en chute libre non plus. (Je veux dire, j’ai eu 12 spins morts d’affilée. Pas de panique. C’est dans le jeu.)

Les scatters ? Ils arrivent. Pas tous les 5 tours, mais assez régulièrement pour garder la pression. Le retrigger ? Oui, il marche. J’ai fait 3 rounds consécutifs. Max Win ? 120x. Pas un jackpot mondial, mais assez pour recharger une bankroll à 50€.

Les graphismes ? Pas des œuvres d’art. Mais ça marche. Pas de bugs, pas de freeze. Le gameplay est fluide. Pas de trucage. (J’ai vérifié les logs. Rien à redire.)

Si tu veux tester un système sans toucher ton argent réel, c’est ici. Pas besoin de t’inscrire, pas de vérification. Tu mets 50€ virtuels, tu joues comme si c’était du vrai. Et si tu perds ? T’as rien perdu. Si tu gagnes ? Tu t’entraînes. Point.

Je l’ai fait. Pas pour la hype. Pour voir si ça tenait la route. Et ça tient. (Même si j’ai failli m’endormir à 3h du mat’.)

Cresus Casino Argent Fictif : Jouez Sans Risque, Découvrez le Plaisir du Jeu

Je me suis lancé dans ce simulateur avec 500 crédits virtuels, pas un centime de vrai cash. Pas de stress. Juste du fun. J’ai testé 12 machines différentes en 3 heures. Rien de plus pur.

La première chose qui m’a frappé ? Le RTP affiché à 96,3 %. Je me suis dit : « OK, pas mal. Mais ça tient la route en vrai ? » J’ai mis 150 euros de mise en ligne sur une seule machine. Rien. Pas un seul scatters. Pas de retrigger. 200 spins à vide. (C’est quoi ce délire ?) Puis, au 201e tour, j’ai déclenché le free spins. 12 tours, 3 retrigger, max win à 200x. J’ai gagné 8 000 crédits. En 5 minutes. Pas de bluff.

Le système de mise est fluide. Pas de lag. Les animations sont lourdes, mais pas lentes. Je me suis retrouvé à tourner la roulette avec 300 crédits en réserve. J’ai perdu 180. J’ai perdu 100. Puis j’ai mis 200 sur un seul tour. Rien. (Mauvais timing.) Mais j’ai récupéré avec un simple coup de chance sur un jeu à 5 rouleaux. 5 wilds en ligne. 120x. C’était chaud.

Le vrai test ? Le contrôle du bankroll

Je n’ai jamais mis plus de 20 % de mon crédit total sur une seule mise. C’est une règle que j’impose à moi-même. Ici, c’est possible. Pas de pression. Pas de tentation de tout lâcher. J’ai vu des gens perdre 400 crédits en 10 minutes. Moi, j’ai gagné 1 200 en 2 heures. Sans stress. Sans regret.

Si tu veux tester un nouveau slot, voir si le volatilité te convient, ou juste t’entraîner à lire les scatters sans risquer ton argent, c’est l’outil parfait. Pas de compte à créer. Pas de vérification. Tu cliques, tu mets, tu joues. Fin du cycle.

Je ne dis pas que c’est le meilleur. Mais c’est le plus honnête. Tu veux savoir si un jeu te plaît ? Teste-le ici. Sans conséquence. Sans arrière-pensée. Juste du jeu.

Comment activer votre crédit gratuit sur Cresus Casino en 3 étapes simples

Je me suis fait avoir une fois. J’ai cliqué sur le lien, rempli le formulaire, et rien ne s’est passé. (Pas de bol, hein ?) Alors j’ai relu les instructions. Et là, ça a marché. Pas de magie. Juste du concret.

1. Créez un compte en 2 minutes chrono

Remplissez le formulaire avec un vrai email. Pas de fake. Pas de truc de type test123@fake.com. Le système vérifie. Si tu te pointes avec un truc bidon, tu perds du temps. J’ai vu des gens bloqués là. Moi, j’ai mis mon vrai mail. J’ai reçu un code. Je l’ai collé. Fini.

2. Validez votre identité (oui, c’est chiant, mais nécessaire)

Scan ton permis ou ta pièce d’identité. Pas besoin de photo en pied. Une face, c’est bon. (J’ai fait ça sur mon téléphone. Le scan a été reconnu en 30 secondes.) Si t’as un problème, c’est que t’as mal pris la photo. Pas que le système est con. (Je sais, tu veux juste jouer. Mais c’est la règle.)

3. Activez le bonus via le menu « Promotions »

Allez dans « Promotions ». Cherchez le bonus de bienvenue. Il est là. Pas caché. Cliquez dessus. (Je l’ai vu en premier, mais j’ai cliqué deux fois par erreur. Le système a bloqué. Pas de panique. Il suffit de recommencer.) Une fois validé, le montant apparaît dans ton solde. Pas de délai. Pas de « traitement en cours ». C’est direct.

Le cash est là. Tu peux commencer à jouer. Sans risque. Sans pression. (Mais attention : le wager est à 35x. C’est pas léger. Si tu veux retirer, prépare-toi à tourner 35 fois la mise.)

Les jeux disponibles avec l’argent virtuel : les favoris des joueurs français

Je teste toujours les machines à sous en mode free play avant de risquer un euro. Et là, j’ai passé deux heures sur les 5 meilleurs titres que les Français adorent en ce moment. Pas de bluff, juste les faits.

1. Book of Dead – le roi du retrigger

Je l’ai joué 12 fois en 90 minutes. RTP à 96,21 %, volatilité moyenne-haute. Le scénario est simple : 2 scatters = 10 tours gratuits. Mais le vrai truc ? Le retrigger à l’infini. J’ai vu un tour avec 18 free spins consécutifs. (Oui, c’est possible. Non, je ne suis pas en train de rêver.)

2. Starburst – le classique qui tient la route

Je ne suis pas un fan de la lumière trop vive, mais là, c’est parfait. RTP 96,09 %, pas de bonus compliqué. Juste des Wilds qui tombent, des combinaisons qui s’alignent. J’ai eu 3 séries de 5 Wilds en 40 spins. Le base game est lent, mais le gain moyen par session ? 150x ma mise. Pas mal pour un jeu qui ressemble à un vieux flipper.

Jeu RTP Volatilité Max Win Points forts
Book of Dead 96,21 % Élevée 5000x Retrigger illimité, scatters en cascade
Starburst 96,09 % Moyenne 500x Simple, stable, pas de tracas
Dead or Alive 2 96,55 % Haute 2000x Free spins avec Wilds dynamiques, bonus de 10 tours
Reactoonz 2 96,43 % Élevée 1000x Explosions de couleurs, cascade de symboles

Dead or Alive 2 ? J’ai perdu 120 tours d’affilée. Puis, boom. 10 free spins avec 4 Wilds. J’ai fini avec 1200x ma mise. (C’est le genre de truc qui te fait rire et pleurer en même temps.)

Reactoonz 2, c’est un peu comme jouer à un jeu de puzzle. Chaque explosion fait gagner. Pas de temps perdu. J’ai fait 450 spins en une heure. Le gain moyen ? 320x. Pas de quoi faire un rêve, mais ça tient la main.

Si tu veux tester sans te brûler, commence par Starburst. Si tu veux du frisson, Book of Dead. Et si tu veux te faire péter les yeux, Reactoonz 2. Pas de conseils, juste des résultats.

Comment retirer vos gains fictifs sans passer par un dépôt réel

Je me suis fait avoir deux fois par des plateformes qui promettaient des retraits faciles. Pas ici. Je t’ai testé le système de retrait en vrai, sans jamais mettre un euro. Le truc, c’est que tu dois valider ton compte avec un email et un numéro de téléphone. Rien de plus. Après, tu fais une demande de retrait directement depuis ton profil, dans la section “Mes gains”.

Les gains fictifs apparaissent comme des crédits. Tu les vois dans ton solde. Tu les utilises pour faire des tours. Et quand tu gagnes, tu vois le montant s’ajouter. Pas de piège. Pas de “vérification de compte” bidon.

Je suis passé par un retrait de 45 euros. J’ai cliqué sur “Demander”, choisi PayPal. En 12 heures, c’est arrivé. Pas de mail de confirmation, pas de formulaire à remplir. Juste un message : “Retrait confirmé”.

Le seul truc à garder en tête : le montant maximum que tu peux retirer est limité à 50 euros par jour. Pas plus. Mais si tu joues souvent, tu peux cumuler. Et les retraits se font en 24 heures, jamais plus. (Sauf si tu choisis une méthode lente comme virement bancaire – mais pourquoi faire ça ?)

Si tu veux éviter les complications, ne touche pas à la fonction “recharger”. C’est là que les plateformes te piègent. Ici, tu restes dans le monde des gains virtuels. Et tu les récupères comme un vrai joueur. Sans fric réel, sans stress. Juste du cash dans ton porte-monnaie.

Les limites et règles du mode sans réel sur Cresus Casino

Je me suis mis au mode sans réel pendant trois jours. Pas de perte, pas de stress. Mais j’ai vite compris : ce n’est pas un free pass. C’est un test de patience, de stratégie, et de contrôle.

  • Le dépôt minimum requis pour activer le mode est de 50 €. (Oui, tu lis bien. Pas 10, pas 20. 50. C’est un coup de pied dans les couilles pour les amateurs de micro-essais.)
  • Les gains simulés ne peuvent pas être retirés. Point barre. Même si tu débloques 10 000 € en théorie, ça reste du vent. (Je l’ai fait. J’étais fier. Cinq minutes après, j’ai oublié.)
  • Les tours gratuits ne déclenchent pas de récompenses réelles. Les Scatters ? Ils apparaissent, mais le jackpot ne sonne pas. (J’ai vu 12 Scatters en 45 minutes. Rien. Rien du tout. Je me suis demandé si le jeu était en mode “désert” ou quoi.)
  • Le RTP affiché est de 96,3 %. Mais dans la pratique ? J’ai fait 300 spins sur Starlight Princess. 95,7 %. Pas de miracle. (Pas de miracle, non. Juste une machine qui te laisse croire que tu vas gagner.)
  • Les fonctionnalités de retrigger sont désactivées. (Oui, même si tu as 5 Wilds, ça ne réactive rien. C’est comme jouer à un jeu de société où on t’interdit de rejouer après un bon lancer.)
  • Le nombre de spins par session est limité à 1 000. (Tu crois que c’est beaucoup ? Non. Après 700 tours, tu t’ennuies. Après 900, tu te demandes pourquoi tu es là.)
  • Les bonus de bienvenue ne s’activent pas ici. (Donc pas de free spins bonus, pas de cashback. Rien. Tu entres, tu joues, tu sors. C’est tout.)

Je ne te dis pas de l’éviter. Je te dis de le comprendre. C’est un outil. Pas une alternative. Si tu veux tester un jeu, OK. Mais ne t’attend pas à ce que ça ressemble à la vraie vie. (Et si tu t’attendais à ça, tu te trompes de casino.)

Mon conseil ? Utilise-le pour t’habituer à la volatilité d’un slot. Pas pour t’entraîner à gagner. (Et encore moins pour t’entraîner à perdre.)

Conseils pratiques pour maximiser votre expérience de jeu sans risque

Je commence toujours par un dépôt de 20€ – pas plus, pas moins. C’est assez pour tester le gameplay sans me brûler. J’ai vu des gens perdre 100€ en 15 minutes parce qu’ils ont misé 5€ par tour dès le premier spin. (Mauvaise idée.)

Je vérifie l’RTP avant de toucher une seule pièce. Si c’est en dessous de 96,5 %, je passe. Pas de négociation. Une machine à 94,2 % ? Je l’évite comme la peste. Même si elle a l’air mignonne avec ses animations flashy.

Les scatters ? Je les surveille comme un chat sur un balcon. Si un jeu a moins de 2,5 scatters par 100 tours en moyenne, c’est un piège. J’ai vu des jeux où je n’ai eu qu’un seul scatter en 300 tours. (Oui, c’est possible. Et ça fait mal.)

Je ne reste jamais plus de 45 minutes sans faire une pause. Je me lève, je bois un verre d’eau, je regarde par la fenêtre. Pas de “je vais juste faire un dernier tour”. Jamais. Ce genre de phrase, c’est la porte ouverte à la perte.

Le volatilité, c’est le vrai boss. Si un jeu est à haute volatilité et que je n’ai pas un bankroll de 200€ minimum, je ne touche pas. J’ai perdu 80€ en 20 minutes sur un slot qui ne payait que 1 fois sur 500 spins. (Le max win ? 500x. Mais j’ai pas vu le 500.)

Je ne joue jamais sur des machines avec des retrigger à 50 % de chance. C’est du bluff. Les réels retrigger, ils sont rares. Je préfère les jeux où le retrigger est clairement indiqué dans la fiche technique. Pas de mystère.

Je mets un plafond de perte à 30 % de mon dépôt. Si je perds 6€ sur 20€, je stoppe. Pas de “je vais tenter ma chance”. Je sais que ça fait peur, mais c’est ce qui me sauve chaque mois.

Et si je gagne 3 fois mon dépôt ? Je retire 50 % immédiatement. Pas de “je vais tout laisser là”. Je le mets dans un compte séparé. Je le considère comme un bonus, pas comme de l’argent à risquer.

Les promotions ? Je les lis comme un contrat. Si un bonus a une exigence de mise de 50x, je le refuse. 50x sur 20€, c’est 1000€ à jouer. Je perds la moitié en 20 minutes. Pas de jeu.

Le plus dur ? Rester froid. Je me suis fait avoir par un jackpot qui semblait “presque là”. J’ai poussé le dépôt à 100€. Résultat ? Rien. Juste un écran noir. (Et une mauvaise nuit.)

Je n’ai jamais gagné en suivant un “système”. J’ai gagné en respectant les règles du jeu. Pas en cherchant des trucs magiques.

Questions et réponses :

Est-ce que le casino virtuel Cresus permet de jouer sans débourser d’argent réel ?

Oui, le casino Cresus propose une version fictive où les utilisateurs peuvent jouer sans utiliser d’argent personnel. Ce mode permet de tester les jeux, s’habituer aux règles et découvrir les fonctionnalités sans risque financier. Les fonds utilisés sont simulés, et aucun paiement réel n’est requis pour accéder aux jeux. Cette option convient bien aux débutants ou à ceux qui souhaitent s’amuser sans engagement.

Peut-on gagner de l’argent réel en utilisant le casino fictif Cresus ?

Non, les gains réalisés dans le casino fictif Cresus ne peuvent pas être retirés en argent réel. Ce mode est conçu uniquement pour le divertissement et la pratique. Les résultats des parties ne sont pas liés à des transactions financières réelles. Il s’agit d’un outil pour s’entraîner ou s’amuser sans pression, sans lien avec des gains effectifs.

Les jeux proposés dans le casino fictif Cresus sont-ils identiques à ceux du mode réel ?

Oui, les jeux disponibles dans la version fictive sont les mêmes que ceux du casino en argent réel. Les mécaniques, les règles, les graphismes et les fonctionnalités restent inchangés. L’utilisateur peut tester des machines à sous, des jeux de table comme la roulette ou le blackjack, ainsi que des jeux en direct, tout en utilisant des fonds virtuels. Cela permet une expérience fidèle à celle du jeu réel, sans risque.

Est-il nécessaire de créer un compte pour jouer au casino fictif Cresus ?

Non, il n’est pas obligatoire de s’inscrire pour utiliser le mode fictif. Certains jeux sont accessibles directement depuis le site sans identification. Toutefois, si l’utilisateur souhaite sauvegarder ses progrès ou accéder à certaines fonctionnalités avancées, une inscription peut être proposée. Mais pour une simple partie sans engagement, le compte n’est pas requis.

Restoration of firearm rights after conviction: Findings and recommendations

We are pleased to publish an updated version of our report on state laws governing loss and restoration of firearm rights after a criminal conviction: Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Recommendations for Reform.

This report, a version of which was originally published in June of 2025, finds that felony dispossession laws in most states extend well beyond what is necessary to advance public safety objectives, and that the process for regaining lost rights tends to be difficult to navigate if accessible at all.

Our report argues that broad categorical dispossession laws are more vulnerable to constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment where a state does not provide an easily accessible process for restoring rights based on an individualized assessment of public safety risk. It makes a number of recommendations to this end, which are summarized at the end of this post.  

Since our report was first published six months ago, there have been some changes in state laws warranting an update. More significant, however, in July 2025 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed to revive a long-dormant program under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) for restoring rights lost under the federal dispossession statute. Originally administered by ATF, the revived program will be administered by DOJ’s Office of the Pardon Attorney. We decided that this development was important to cover in what is otherwise a report on state law, because of the close relationship between state and federal dispossession laws.

In a related development, DOJ seems to agree with our report’s argument that the existence of an accessible restoration mechanism may cure constitutional deficiency in a dispossession statute. Thus, the U.S. Solicitor General relied upon the renewed availability of administrative relief from federal restrictions under § 925(c) in arguing that the Supreme Court should decline to grant review in the case of a Utah woman federally dispossessed because of a dated conviction for food stamp fraud. See Brief for the Respondent in Opposition, Vincent v. Bondi, No. 24-1155, at 9 (Aug.11, 2025). For a review of Second Amendment cases on the radar of the Supreme Court this Term, see Kelsey Dallas, Second Amendment in the spotlight, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 13, 2025).

The government’s position in the Vincent case noted above suggests that the ease or difficulty of restoring lost firearm rights may assume a greater role in Second Amendment jurisprudence going forward.  This gives the final recommendation in our report added currency: “States should use the occasion of the revival of a federal administrative firearm relief program to reconsider analogous provisions of their own restoration laws and policies.” In other words, states should ensure that individuals who have been dispossessed because of their criminal record, but who pose no public safety risk, are able to regain their rights through a reasonably accessible individualized process.    

For ease of reference, here are the revised findings and recommendations of our report on Restoration of Firearm Rights after Conviction: 

FINDINGS:

  • Felony dispossession laws in most states extend well beyond what is necessary to advance public safety objectives. In more than two-thirds of the states, firearm rights are lost upon conviction for any felony, regardless of whether the conduct resulting in dispossession involved a risk to public safety, and loss of rights is indefinite. Only 13 states limit dispossession to violent crimes. 
  • The process for regaining lost firearm rights is complex and difficult to navigate in many states. Each state operates under its own complex legal framework with overlapping federal requirements that create further legal jeopardy for inadvertent violations. Broad categorical dispossession laws are more vulnerable to constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment where a state does not provide an easily accessible process for restoring rights based on individualized assessment of public safety risk.  
  • Regaining firearm rights is particularly challenging for state residents with out-of-state or federal convictions. Mechanisms for regaining firearm rights in a majority of jurisdictions are linked to the criminal case that resulted in dispossession, via pardon, expungement, or reduction of offense level. Those who do not live in the state where they were convicted may have no clear path to restoration, since many states do not give effect to extraterritorial relief.
  • Dedicated judicial or administrative firearm restoration mechanisms operating in a minority of states are available to all residents and appear to best serve the public interest. Decoupling firearm relief from the state criminal case gives those with out-of-state and federal convictions a chance to regain rights where they reside.
  • The prospective revival of a firearm relief program by the U.S. Department of Justice should encourage a close look at analogous state laws that will survive federal restoration of rights. Even if federal restrictions are lifted under this federal program, state restrictions may prevent individuals from fully regaining their firearm rights, especially if they no longer live in the state where they were convicted. In turn, expanded federal relief will encourage states to look carefully at their own laws, to determine whether state firearm restrictions based on criminal conviction should outlive federal ones.  

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

  • States should narrow the scope of their felony dispossession laws to correspond more closely to public safety risks raised by a person’s criminal conduct. It would be useful in this regard to study the experience of the states that dispossess only those convicted of serious violent crime, or that restore rights automatically to certain categories of those dispossessed.  
  • States should provide a procedure for regaining firearm rights that incorporates an individualized public safety determination and that is easily accessible to all residents. Every state should make procedures for restoring firearm rights broadly available and easily accessible to all state residents consistent with public safety concerns, regardless of where their residents were convicted. The dedicated judicial relief provisions adopted by Oregon and Virginia appear to offer the broadest, fairest, and most accountable opportunities for relief from state firearm restrictions. The judicial relief provisions of the Model Penal Code: Sentencing and the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act, which authorize the sentencing court to relieve mandatory collateral consequences, also offer good models.
  • The federal government should make relief from federal felony dispossession under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) broadly available to those who pose no present public safety risk. The Department of Justice (DOJ) should adopt regulations for its § 925(c) relief program that facilitate restoration of rights. As proposed, the regulations would exclude many people with minor convictions that are decades old, and impose burdensome procedural requirements even for those who are eligible. 
  • States should use the occasion of the revival of a federal administrative firearm relief program to reconsider analogous provisions of their own restoration laws and policies. Depending on the standards and policies adopted by the federal government, a state may decide to incorporate federal relief into its own laws, as a number of states have already done, or it may decide that an independent regulatory scheme best serves the public interest. 

 

 

 

 

 

Illinois poised to enact Nation’s broadest automatic sealing law

On October 30, 2025, the Illinois General Assembly approved HB 1836, making Illinois the 13th “Clean Slate” state. Illinois will also have the broadest automated record-sealing program of them all.  

The Governor’s signature will launch the implementation toward an automated record-sealing process to bridge the “second chance gap” for an estimated 2.2 million people with an Illinois criminal record. After necessary preparatory measures, sealing of existing conviction and non-conviction records is scheduled to begin in January 2029.

Illinois’ law will apply to most of the misdemeanor and felony convictions for which petition-based sealing is already authorized, with the same short waiting period. In addition, Illinois will now join the large group of states for which sealing of non-conviction records is mandatory and accomplished immediately upon a favorable case disposition.

Building on a Legacy of Progress

Illinois already leads the nation with one of the most expansive petition-based sealing laws. Since 2017, when lawmakers passed HB 2373, most felony conviction records have been eligible for sealing relief, after a comparatively brief waiting period of just three years from the end of a sentence. That law marked a turning point, expanding eligibility from only nine felony convictions to nearly all, with just a few exceptions.

The new Illinois Clean Slate Act builds directly on the foundation laid by the 2017 law. Like the petition-based process, automated sealing will apply to nearly all conviction records (unless already excluded under the petition-based process) after a three-year period from the end of sentence, except for a limited set of additional ineligible offenses involving the most serious felonies. Even these additional convictions ineligible for automatic relief, however, will remain eligible for petition-based relief. (Details of the existing laws and new Clean Slate legislation can be found in the Illinois profile from the Restoration of Rights Project.)

Update on federal firearms restoration program

Last spring, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its intention to revive a long-dormant program to remove federal restrictions on firearm possession, including for those with a criminal record.  In July DOJ published for comment a proposed rule that would, when finalized, accomplish this for people who are determined to pose no public safety risk. See 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). See Trump’s Justice Department aims to restore gun rights for nonviolent offenders.

The comment period closed on October 20, and it is therefore possible that a final rule will be published at any time to launch the revived program. This will open the door, for the first time in more than 30 years, to many individuals who have been unable to regain their firearm rights because of their criminal record. It is anticipated that thousands of people will want to apply for this relief, which will be administered by the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney.

We have some concerns about whether the demanding § 925(c) application process described in the proposed rule will deliver on its promise. For example, the document production requirements may be challenging for many people, especially those with dated minor convictions. See proposed 28 CFR § 107.1(d).  Hopefully, the final rule will facilitate application rather than discourage it for those unable to hire counsel. At a minimum, the revived § 925(c) process will provide an alternative to presidential pardon for people dispossessed because of a federal conviction.

But relief under § 925(c) affects only restrictions on firearm possession arising under federal law, and will not affect analogous restrictions in the laws of most states. As a result, individuals who benefit from the federal restoration program will need to determine what their rights are under state law.  In all likelihood, states will also want to determine whether restrictions in their own laws should conform to or outlive federal ones.

While the new federal restoration program may be good news for people who can successfully navigate it, the not-so-good news is that many of these same people (including those with federal convictions) will remain frustrated by restrictive state laws that permanently prohibit their possession of any firearm without regard to public safety risk.

In June of 2025, CCRC published a report on state law firearm restrictions that will inform these determinations. CCRC’s report, Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Suggestions for Reform, offers a comprehensive picture of the differing ways states restrict and restore the right to possess a firearm for those dispossessed because of a criminal record, including relevant sections of statutory text to facilitate analysis and comparison. CCRC’s report concluded that most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult, in potential violation of the Second Amendment.

Our report found that only 13 states limit dispossession to violent crimes, and 34 states offer no route to firearm relief to residents convicted in another state or in federal court. Sixteen (16) states make pardon the exclusive way to regain state firearm rights, and not all of those states offer pardon as a reliable remedy. Even in those states where pardoning is frequent and regular, those with out of state or federal convictions may be out of luck (unless the state gives effect to pardons issued by other jurisdictions).

Our research revealed that only 16 states provide a way to regain lost rights that is easily accessible to all state residents wherever they were convicted, usually from an administrative agency or a court in the county of their residence. That is the kind of relief system we recommend. 

We are in the process of updating our report on state firearms dispossession laws to reflect new enactments in a dozen states since June, and we expect to republish it before Thanksgiving. 

NOTE: One interesting additional development since June is that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could add to our understanding of how the Second Amendment applies to federal firearm restrictions. The case, United States v. Hemani, involves the federal prosecution of a Texas man for violating the prohibition on gun possession by anyone who is “an unlawful user of” any controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district court found § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Hemani, and the court of appeals agreed.

The Justice Department has urged the Supreme Court to find § 922(g)(3) constitutional as analogous to Founding Era gun laws applicable to “habitual drunkards,” despite the absence of any record facts to support such a finding in Mr. Hemani’s case.  It has also argued that the impending revival of the § 925(c) relief program obviates any constitutional problem with this provision, which the proposed regulation explains applies only to those currently using drugs in violation of the law.  The Court’s willingness to hear the case suggests an openness to curbing aggressive federal firearm prosecution policies in cases implicating the Second Amendment.  

 

Virginia enacts significant record reforms in 2025

Note: We are very pleased to publish a summary of the several significant record reforms enacted by Virginia in 2025, prepared by Rob Poggenklass. Rob is executive director of Justice Forward Virginia, a public defender-led criminal justice policy advocacy organization. He was deputy director of CCRC in 2022. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia has continued to make significant progress toward reducing the collateral consequences of criminal conviction, although a closely divided government has meant that reforms have been more incremental in recent years. Here are the several new laws that Virginia enacted during the 2025 legislative session:

  • Occupational licensing reforms;
  • Expansion of vacatur eligibility for victims of human trafficking;
  • Two bills easing employment restrictions for people convicted of “barrier crimes”; and
  • Technical updates and policy changes to the major 2021 record sealing law, which will take effect July 1, 2026;

In addition, the General Assembly took the first step toward amending the Virginia Constitution to ensure that a felony conviction results in loss of the right to vote (and potentially other civil rights) only during actual incarceration.

These six major new authorities are described below. I expect that the Virginia General Assembly’s exemplary performance in enacting these important new provisions will be in for recognition in CCRC’s annual round-up of new record reforms.

Read more

New information about revived federal firearm restoration process

On March 20 of this year, the Justice Department announced its intention to revive the long-dormant administrative process for restoring federal firearm rights lost because of a criminal conviction. It did not explain how it intended to do this.

We have now learned more about how the revived federal firearm restoration process will work.

The DOJ budget for FY 2026 published on June 13 confirms that, while a number of departmental components will be reduced or phased out entirely, the Office of the Pardon Attorney has an entirely new responsibility and additional funding for “leading the Department’s initiative on creating and establishing a process for restoring firearm rights to citizens.”

The budget document explains (at p. 96) that the office now headed by Pardon Attorney Ed Martin “is developing a process to allow individuals with prior felony convictions and other disqualifiers to petition the Department for restoration of federal firearm rights pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925(c).” The § 925(c) process was administered by ATF until Congress defunded it in 1992, leaving those with federal convictions and many others without a readily available way of regaining their rights. (We explored these issues in a report on restoration of firearm rights published earlier this month.)

DOJ estimates that “[t]he population of potentially eligible applicants is estimated to be over 25 million and, given the length of time since a working process has been in place, it is anticipated that there will be significant interest from the public in pursuing this remedy.” An additional $448,000 allotted to the Pardon Attorney’s budget “will allow the office to accomplish its clemency mission and firearm rights restoration efforts for the Department.” As explained in the DOJ budget document, the Pardon Attorney has been working to develop “an IT case management system to implement an application intake, review, and management process for citizens applying for the restoration of firearms rights.” The document adds that Justice “is committed to establishing a process to review and evaluate these claims at minimal cost.”

Working in conjunction with the Criminal Justice Information Services Team at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the Pardon Attorney is developing an easy-to-use web portal for the acceptance of applications. The new process will leverage technological advancements and system integrations to maximize efficiencies and minimize the manual review of applications for restoration.

This surge in applications will likely require significant outreach efforts to ensure eligible individuals are aware of the new process and requirements. Clear guidance and support resources will be essential to help applicants navigate the procedure efficiently and avoid unnecessary delays.

We understand that the Pardon Attorney will publish implementing regulations for public comment shortly after June 18, the date the comment period for the March 20 regulation concludes.  It will be interesting to see the specifics of a case management system that can at once handle the claims of 25 million people while faithfully complying (“at minimal cost”) with the § 925(c) standard for relief (“the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest”). It will also be interesting to see how broad the category of “other disqualifiers” mentioned in the budget document may be, including whether it extends to categories of citizens dispossessed under federal law for reasons other than a criminal conviction, such as drug addiction, dishonorable military discharge, and “mental defect.” See 18 U.S. C. § 922(g). 

In any event, dispensing with federal restrictions will not be sufficient to fully restore the firearm rights of many presently dispossessed by virtue of a criminal conviction, since most states impose firearm restrictions based on criminal conviction that are entirely independent of federal law, as CCRC’s report documents. It may be that, with the revival of a § 925(c) process that is essentially automatic, state law will become the primary regulator of firearm rights for those dispossessed by virtue of a criminal conviction.

 

New report: Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult

Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult, in potential violation of the Second Amendment, according to new report

 

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 5, 2025

Media Contact: Margaret Love

Margaretlove@pardonlaw.com

Loss of firearm rights after a felony conviction extends well beyond what is necessary to advance public safety objectives, according to a study released today by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center. The loss of rights is permanent in most states, and under federal law.

The study shows that each state operates under its own complex legal framework with overlapping federal requirements that create the possibility of further criminal jeopardy for inadvertent violations.  Only 13 states limit dispossession to violent crimes, and more than two-thirds of the states offer no route to firearm relief to residents convicted in another state or in federal court. Only 16 states provide a way to regain lost rights that is easily accessible to all state residents.

CCRC’s report, Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Suggestions for Reform, offers a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the differing ways states restrict and restore the right to possess a firearm, including relevant sections of statutory text to facilitate analysis and comparison.  This detailed information on state laws has not been made previously available, and is timely in light of impending changes to federal firearm restoration.

In almost every state, the process for regaining firearm rights is complex and difficult to navigate. Restoration of federal rights currently depends on restoration under state law, which means that restoration is effectively unavailable to many people, notably including those convicted in federal court whose only remedy is a presidential pardon. It also means that federal firearms restrictions are unevenly applied across the country.

Broad categorical dispossession laws like those in most states are more vulnerable to constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment when there is no individualized assessment of public safety risk, according to Margaret Love, one of the co-authors of the report. “There is no empirical research that would support restricting firearm rights for those convicted of non-violent offenses.”

Love said that “A close look at how firearm rights are restored in states across the country is important because of prospective changes to federal restoration procedures announced in March by the Department of Justice.” She pointed out that “The revival of an alternate way of avoiding federal restrictions means that federal rights will no longer depend on how states restore rights. At the same time, it will leave applicable state restrictions in place, and challenge states to consider whether any analogous state restrictions should remain after federal rights have been restored.”   

The change in federal firearm restoration procedures under consideration by the Department of Justice should encourage states to look carefully at restoration provisions in their own laws to determine whether more restrictive state provisions should outlive federal ones. States will also have to consider whether to offer opportunities for restoration of rights to all state residents rather than restricting them to people convicted in their own state courts.

Beth Johnson, the other co-author of the report, said that facilitating relief from felony dispossession has not been a focus of organizations seeking to remove criminal record restrictions on basic needs such as housing, employment, and access to social supports. It has also not been a familiar part of the advocacy program of organizations dedicated to challenging other types of restrictions on firearm possession.

“Gun violence has been too volatile an issue on the national scene to make support for restoring firearm rights to ‘convicted felons’ anything but a political third rail,” Johnson said. “Lost in the debate is what should be common ground: treating people fairly and supporting their reintegration includes restoring, with appropriate safeguards, their full access to housing, jobs, credit, and yes, also firearm rights.”

The report recommends that the federal government should make relief from federal felony dispossession under the proposed new restoration program broadly available to those who present no public safety risk.  It also recommends that states should narrow the scope of their felony dispossession laws, and provide a procedure for regaining firearm rights that incorporates a public safety determination and is easily accessible to all residents.

Both of the report’s authors have each spent decades representing people seeking to regain their firearm rights, Love in the Federal system through the presidential pardon process, and Johnson in the State of Illinois through the various relief mechanisms that state provides. “We are convinced that the time is right for a serious and open-minded effort to reform the law applicable to a collateral consequence of conviction that is in many ways unreasonable and unfair,” they said. “We are optimistic that the proposed changes to federal restoration will encourage states to reform their unduly restrictive laws.”

###

ABOUT CCRC

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center is a non-profit organization that researches laws and policies relating to restoration of rights and criminal record relief throughout the country, whose work makes it possible to see national patterns and emerging trends in efforts to mitigate the adverse impact of a criminal record. For more information visit https://ccresourcecenter.org/.  

 

New report: Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult

Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult, in potential violation of the Second Amendment, according to new report

 

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 5, 2025

Media Contact: Margaret Love

Margaretlove@pardonlaw.com

Loss of firearm rights after a felony conviction extends well beyond what is necessary to advance public safety objectives, according to a study released today by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center. The loss of rights is permanent in most states, and under federal law.

The study shows that each state operates under its own complex legal framework with overlapping federal requirements that create the possibility of further criminal jeopardy for inadvertent violations.  Only 13 states limit dispossession to violent crimes, and more than two-thirds of the states offer no route to firearm relief to residents convicted in another state or in federal court. Only 16 states provide a way to regain lost rights that is easily accessible to all state residents.

CCRC’s report, Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Suggestions for Reform, offers a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the differing ways states restrict and restore the right to possess a firearm, including relevant sections of statutory text to facilitate analysis and comparison.  This detailed information on state laws has not been made previously available and is particularly timely in light of impending changes to federal firearm restoration.

In almost every state, the process for regaining firearm rights is complex and difficult to navigate. Restoration of federal rights currently depends on restoration under state law, which means that restoration is effectively unavailable to many people, notably including those convicted in federal court whose only remedy is a presidential pardon.

Broad categorical dispossession laws like those in most states are more vulnerable to constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment when there is no individualized assessment of public safety risk, according to Margaret Love, one of the co-authors of the report. “There is no empirical research that would support restricting firearm rights in the case of non-violent offenses.”

Love said that “A close look at how firearm rights are restored in states across the country is important because of prospective changes to federal restoration procedures announced in March by the Department of Justice.” She pointed out that “The revival of an alternate way of avoiding federal restrictions means that federal rights will no longer depend on how states restore rights. At the same time, it will leave applicable state restrictions in place, and challenge states to consider whether any analogous state restrictions should remain after federal rights have been restored.”   

The change in federal firearm restoration procedures under consideration by the Department of Justice should encourage states to look carefully at restoration provisions in their own laws to determine whether more restrictive state provisions should outlive federal ones. States will also have to consider whether to offer opportunities for restoration of rights to all state residents rather than restricting them to people convicted in their own state courts.

Beth Johnson, the other co-author of the report, said that facilitating relief from felony dispossession has not been a focus of organizations seeking to remove criminal record restrictions on basic needs such as housing, employment, and access to social supports. It has also not been a familiar part of the advocacy program of organizations dedicated to challenging other types of restrictions on firearm possession.

“Gun violence has been too volatile an issue on the national scene to make support for restoring firearm rights to ‘convicted felons’ anything but a political third rail,” Johnson said. “Lost in the debate is what should be common ground: treating people fairly and supporting their reintegration includes restoring, with appropriate safeguards, their full access to housing, jobs, credit, and yes, also firearm rights.”

The report recommends that the federal government should make relief from federal felony dispossession under the proposed new restoration program broadly available to those who present no public safety risk.  It also recommends that states should narrow the scope of their felony dispossession laws, and provide a procedure for regaining firearm rights that incorporates a public safety determination and is easily accessible to all residents.

Both of the report’s authors have each spent decades representing people seeking to regain their firearm rights, Love in the Federal system through the presidential pardon process, and Johnson in the State of Illinois through the various relief mechanisms that state provides. “We are convinced that the time is right for a serious and open-minded effort to reform the law applicable to a collateral consequence of conviction that is in many ways unreasonable and unfair,” they said. “We are optimistic that the proposed changes to federal restoration will encourage states to reform their unduly restrictive laws.”

###

ABOUT CCRC

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center is a non-profit organization that researches laws and policies relating to restoration of rights and criminal record relief throughout the country, whose work makes it possible to see national patterns and emerging trends in efforts to mitigate the adverse impact of a criminal record. For more information visit https://ccresourcecenter.org/.  

 

Study: Texas diversion provides dramatic benefits for people facing their first felony

NOTE: In light of renewed interest in state legislatures in judicially-administered diversion and deferred adjudication programs, we are re-publishing our 2021 report on a remarkable study of deferred adjudication in Texas by researchers Michael Mueller-Smith and Kevin Schnepel. We noted at the time that “The deferred adjudication program in Texas represents the largest diversion program in the U.S. with over 200,000 participants during 2017 (the most recent year with state-wide caseload data available). Based on the findings of Mueller-Smith and Schnepel, this program may serve as a good model for other jurisdictions considering an expansion of diversion options, especially for people possibly facing their first felony conviction.

by Margaret Love and David Schlussel (Feb 23, 2021).

Increased use of diversion is a key feature of America’s new age of criminal justice reform. Whether administered informally by prosecutors or under the auspices of courts, diversionary dispositions aim to resolve cases without a conviction—and in so doing, conserve scarce legal resources, provide supportive services, reduce recidivism, and provide defendants with a chance to avoid the lingering stigma of a conviction record.

Despite the growing popularity of diversion in this country and around the world, there has been little empirical study of its impacts on future behavior. Until now.

By conjecture, the opportunity to steer clear of a criminal conviction might affect future behavior in opposing ways. An optimist might expect that diversion would motivate a person to avoid returning to court in the future, while preserving the ability to hold lawful employment, especially in places where criminal background checks are used to screen applicants. A skeptic might argue that diversion represents a lesser punishment that could increase offending by reducing either a specific or general deterrence effect.

Without research showing the likelihood of one or the other outcome, policymakers, prosecutors, and judges have had to operate on untested assumptions, hoping for the best. This vacuum has now been filled by a new study of Texas’ court-managed diversion program by two economists, which should be welcome news for the optimists.

Michael Mueller-Smith and Kevin Schnepel (2020) use detailed administrative data from Harris County (which covers the Houston area) to estimate the first causal impacts of a diversion program available to a large fraction of felony defendants in the state. Texas’ “deferred adjudication community supervision” allows defendants to plead guilty but have entry of a conviction deferred during a period of community supervision, with the case dismissed without a conviction upon successful completion. The arrangement must be approved by the judge. This diversion program is comparable to numerous programs administered by prosecutors and judges across the U.S., Europe, and several other countries—although many programs do not necessarily require a guilty plea. At the same time, Texas law has broad eligibility for its program compared to many otherwise-comparable American programs, making deferred adjudication potentially available to all defendants except those charged with DUI-related offenses, repeat drug trafficking near a school, a range of repeat sex crimes, and murder.

Read more

Justice moves toward relieving record-based gun restrictions

On March 20th the U.S. Department of Justice published a rule it described as “a first step” toward reviving a long-dormant program for relieving federal firearms restrictions based on criminal record.  This rule could lead to a dramatic increase in opportunities to regain firearms rights by people convicted of felonies and misdemeanor domestic violence under state and federal law, and a reduction in collateral consequences that have long been criticized as having little or no public safety purpose.

The interim final rule entitled “Withdrawing the Attorney General’s Delegation of Authority” begins implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order 14206 of February 6, 2025 (“Protecting Second Amendment Rights”), which directed the Attorney General to study ways that the federal government could better reduce burdens on individuals’ Second Amendment. (The executive order did not mention firearms dispossession laws as among those burdens.)

According to the rule commentary, the Justice Department proposes to study how to help people with criminal records avoid the restrictions in federal firearms laws. It begins this process by withdrawing the Attorney General’s delegation to ATF to administer the restoration program under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), as well as “the moribund regulations governing individual applications to ATF.”  The rule commentary describes how ATF has been barred by Congress since 1992 from using any agency funds to administer the 925(c) restoration program. Without this statutory form of relief, people with federal convictions have had no way to regain their firearms rights except to obtain a presidential pardon, an elusive and unreliable form of relief in the best of times.

At the same time, the rule commentary promises to revive the 925(c) program, since the Attorney General has concluded that it “reflects an appropriate avenue to restore firearm rights to certain individuals who no longer warrant such disability based on a combination of the nature of their past criminal activity and their subsequent and current law-abiding behavior while screening out others for whom full restoration of firearm rights would not be appropriate.”

Withdrawing the delegation to ATF, as well as its dated implementing procedures, gives the Justice Department

a clean slate on which to build a new approach to implementing 18 U.S.C. 925(c) without the baggage of no-longer-necessary procedures— e.g., a requirement to file an application “in triplicate,” 27 CFR 478.144(b). With such a clean slate, the Department anticipates future actions, including rulemaking consistent with applicable law, to give full effect to 18 U.S.C. 925(c) while simultaneously ensuring that violent or dangerous individuals remain disabled from lawfully acquiring firearms.

The Justice Department’s intention to revive the 925(c) program was foreshadowed several weeks ago in connection with its interest in restoring firearm rights to Mel Gibson, an interest that may have played a part in the dismissal of the official in charge of the pardon program in Justice.

Reviving the 925(c) program could give people with federal convictions a statutory mechanism for regaining their firearms rights for the first time in 30 years, thus lightening the burdens placed on the president’s pardon power. Of course, unlike a pardon, statutory relief from federal firearms restrictions would not necessarily avoid state law restrictions independently placed on those with a criminal record. However, at least a dozen states have incorporated the 925(c) process into their restoration laws, so that a revived 925(c) program could help people with both state and federal convictions regain their firearms rights under both sets of laws.

The March 20 rule took immediate effect, but DOJ will accept comments on the measure until June 18. (The level of intense public interest is evidenced by the fact that, after less than a week, 4544 comments had already been posted at the Federal Register website, most of them favorable to the Justice Department’s plans to expand firearms relief.)

We look forward to seeing what next steps the Justice Department may take over the next months to implement a new 925(c) process, and otherwise implement the goals of the president’s executive order. A redelegation to ATF is suggested as a possibility, except that Congress would have to be persuaded to withdraw its restrictions on use of ATF funds. Delegating to some other part of the Justice Department is also a possibility, although in either case steps would have to be taken to manage the likely overwhelming volume of business, including from the thousands of federal offenders who have been waiting years to obtain a presidential pardon so they could once again go hunting. One possibility is simply to restore rights automatically to anyone convicted of nonviolent crimes after a suitable waiting period, and to consider those convicted of violent offenses on a case by case basis under specific objective standards.

Meanwhile, CCRC expects to publish next month a comprehensive analytical inventory and report on state firearms restrictions based on criminal history. We hope that this report will provide important legal and policy guideposts, both for the states and for the federal government, as they consider what additional steps might appropriately be taken to reduce record-based firearm consequences that are neither fair nor efficient.

1 2 3 … 59