A June 15 letter to attorney Stephen Stamboulieh from the Department of Justice confirms DOJ is digging in against providing records responsive to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning the restoration of firearm rights to individuals who have been identified as eligible.
“We previously provided you with an interim response on March 26, 2026. We have now completed the processing of an additional fourteen pages of material responsive to your request,” Senior Counsel Vanessa R. Brinkmann advises. “At this time, I have determined that all fourteen pages should be withheld in full pursuant to Exemption 6 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Exemption 6 pertains to information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Please be advised that we have considered the foreseeable harm standard when reviewing records and applying FOIA exemption.”
DOJ is trying to close the door on a request submitted in April of last year that attempted to determine DOJ decision-making criteria when it identified 10 individuals, including actor/director Mel Gibson, for firearms restoration. Because it’s so easy to end up on the prohibited persons list (including the innocent pleading out to avoid great expense and threatened draconian punishment if they lose), it seemed in the interests of gun owners to know what criteria were used and who is likely to be eligible for consideration.
The FOIA request was an attempt to determine how those particular individuals were selected in order to clarify how other citizens could be included, by 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.”
Since the government did not respond to the request in the time required by law, a complaint was filed last Sept. 25 in the United States District Court in the District of Columbia asking the court to order DOJ to conduct a responsive search, produce non-exempt records and enjoin DOJ from continuing to withhold records.
“No response is required… 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,” US Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro and Assistant US Attorney John J. Pardo argued in the Department’s answer, filed Dec. 19.
Despite that court filing, Brinkmann’s March interim response indicated they had identified such records. Her latest reply now tells us they won’t provide them.
The thing is, the FOIA request never asked for anything that was not a matter of nonexempt record and that would be violative of privacy rights, and the intent behind the effort was simply to help determine what criteria citizens seeking similar relief would need to meet to prove themselves eligible for equal treatment.
While, per the Office of the Pardon Attorney, the proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register and the comment period is over, a final rule with procedures to petition for rights restoration and an online application form have yet to be issued. And while it’s true the proposed rule offers generic guidance on eligibility, the devil is in the details:
Under § 107.1(7) and (8) of the proposed rule, those convicted of certain serious offenses that are not the violent or sexual offenses discussed above, may be considered for relief 10 years after the completion of their sentences based on their individualized circumstances without triggering the presumptive disqualification set forth in this rule. For all other offenses, as specified in § 107.1(a)(9), the Department has selected a presumptively disqualifying time-period of 5 years based on a review of the research and a need to balance public safety with individual rights.
In terms of rendering a decision, things get amorphous.
“The Attorney General may consider the elements of the statute of conviction and conclude that those elements, standing alone, necessarily match the offenses listed in the proposed rule and thereby presumptively render relief to be not in the interest of public safety,” the proposed rule states. “The rule also would clarify that the Attorney General’s decision whether to grant relief will be based on all the relevant circumstances, rather than a blindered approach that looks only at the facts that led to the applicant’s federal firearm disability.”
That could make ensuring equivalent outcomes problematic. Noting “the Department estimates that approximately 1 million people will apply for relief [estimated at $20 per application] within the first year of the program” requiring “50 FTE [Full-Time Equivalent] personnel,” there will be much room for variations. The need to apply consistent criteria is not only a matter of basic fairness, but of law.
That’s why release of requested records, without disclosing exempt information, will help ensure that, and DOJ’s blanket refusal, by claiming doing so would be “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” seems more a hollow deflection than anything else. After all, it was the administration that released their names to the public in what was clearly to its political advantage by appealing to the “gun voters” it relies on.
In terms of continuing with this complaint, attorney Stamboulieh is working with DOJ on the next steps. Further developments will be reported in this column.
Feds Lost Young Adult Handgun Ban Case – Now Gun Groups Want the Full Win
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
The modern framework of permanently prohibiting all convicted felons from possessing firearms did not emerge in the United States until the mid-20th century. Prior to this there was no uniform national rule enforcing a lifetime ban on owning firearms and it was generally assumed an ex-felon would become a virtuous citizen. If not, the accepted premise was that he would soon find himself back in prison or dead.
DoJ/ATF turned down my FOIA request too. How often, in the most recent 5 calendar year for which data is available, “The number of gun traces where the one sole, single and only clue to identifying the perpetrator or accused perpetrator of an unlawful shooting was a BATFE trace by make, model, and serial number of the firearm used. Where not in violation of law, regulation or rule, please provide the date of each of these traces, the date and type of identifying record, and information identifying the criminal case.” Supposedly such information is protected by the Tiahrt rider. How… Read more »
Most Americans view police states as a condition entirely unique to dictatorships. However, stack any free nation with enough liberal perverts and leftist “eee-mi-greents” and police states can be imposed via popular election too! And we might even be there already.
It is Not the department of justice. It Is the Department of Just Us.
pirro needs her license pulled and a stent in a prison
Tell me again how “the most pro gun DOJ in history” is actually pro gun?
So why exactly would this data be required by AMMOLAND, for what purpose? To determine if the DOJ process of gun rights restoration meets a certain criteria? Whose criteria? This seems like a nuisance FOIA request.