Baba Louie, you might want to take a look at Enos, et al v. Holder, et al.
This is a CA case that is pretty much on point with your query.
The Internet Archive
has the docket and the relevant case filings. We also have an ongoing thread about this case, here
Here, the plaintiffs were all (but one) convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. However, under CA law, their firearms rights were restored by action of the law itself or by action of the plaintiff. Yet the BATF says they are all prohibited persons. Not just because of the MCDV (Lautenberg Act), but also because they never lost any rights, therefore no rights were restored.
The BATF is not counting the loss of the RKBA as a right. They are using a pre-Heller
definition of rights.