After the Trump Administration Department of Justice announced in April that it had identified 10 individuals, including actor Mel Gibson, for firearms rights restoration, gun-rights advocates cheered. After all, there are lots of ways to have those rights rescinded, but few ways to have them restored.
“Attorney General has reviewed all the relevant facts for each individual … including the materials that each individual submitted seeking either a pardon or relief from federal firearms disabilities…,” the DOJ said at the time.
As it turns out, however, the DOJ, which has struggled with its commitment to the Second Amendment during President Donald Trump’s first year of his second term, isn’t willing to share what criteria were used in making the decision.
In a recent report at ammoland.com, political writer David Codrea describes how he set out to learn exactly what criteria were used in making the decision on the rights restoration. By having those criteria, others who want to make such an appeal would know what information to submit.
To that end, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed asking for all records “reviewed” by the Attorney General for each individual listed in the filing, all records “that each individual submitted” to receive relief under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), and all other records not “submitted” by the list of individuals but relied upon by the Attorney General in establishing that “each individual will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief to each individual would not be contrary to the public interest.”
The request was pretty straightforward. Rather than provide the information, however, the government chose to stonewall on the request.
After acknowledging receipt of the FOIA request, the DOJ failed to provide the information in the time allotted by law. That prompted the information seekers to file a lawsuit to compel the government to provide the withheld records.
The DOJ’s response to the court left no question that it intended to provide the records used in making the rights restoration decision.
“No response is required…,” U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro and Assistant U.S. Attorney John J. Pardo argued in the DOJ’s answer filed December 19 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. “Plaintiff is not entitled to compel the production of any record… This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction… Plaintiff is neither eligible for nor entitled to attorney’s fees [and] Plaintiff’s request is improper to the extent is it unduly burdensome.”
Ultimately, Codrea concluded that the incident is another example of the DOJ’s “bipolar” nature as it relates to the Second Amendment.
“None of this is to disparage good and unprecedented positions being taken by DOJ that would never have happened under any other administration to date, but that does not require Second Amendment advocates to turn a blind eye to when those positions turn cognitively dissonant,” he wrote. “Without pointing those out, much damage and bad precedent from “friendly fire” can hurt gun owners just as much, if not more, than infringements enacted by flat-out gun prohibitionists.”
Read the full article here