The U.S. Supreme Court case Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 1982 dealt with the issue of whether a person who had been convicted in state court but later had their civil rights restored was still considered "convicted" under federal law for purposes of gun control regulations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) denied an application from New Banner Institute to manufacture firearms because one of its corporate officers had previously been convicted of a felony. Although his civil rights were restored by the state, ATF argued that he remained disqualified under federal law due to his prior conviction. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ATF stating that restoration of civil rights at the state level does not negate or erase a conviction for purposes related to federal firearm prohibitions.

In the dissenting opinion for Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority misinterpreted federal law regarding firearm possession by convicted felons. He contended that Congress intended to permanently bar such individuals from owning guns unless their civil rights were fully restored or they received explicit relief from a government official authorized to grant it. The majority's interpretation, he believed, would allow those with felony convictions in states where civil rights are automatically restored upon completion of sentence to possess firearms without any further review or consideration of their individual circumstances. This approach undermined Congressional intent and public safety by potentially allowing dangerous individuals easy access to firearms.