“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 argue in the Department of Justice’s answer, filed Dec. 19 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The response was to a complaint filed by attorney Stephen Stamboulieh on behalf of this correspondent after a Freedom of Information Act request to determine rights restoration eligibility criteria was ignored.
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. DOJ, despite publicizing its championing of rights restoration, officially disagrees.
The initial request was submitted in April after the Justice Department had announced it had “identified ten (10) individuals for firearm restoration [actor Mel Gibson among them],” and said that the “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…”
Left undefined was what criteria citizens seeking similar relief would need to meet to be considered for equal treatment. To that end, a 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.”
Receipt of the request was acknowledged by DOJ in early May, but was not fulfilled within the 20 business days period required by law, so a complaint asking for “injunctive and other appropriate relief and … the disclosure and release of agency records improperly withheld from Plaintiff … regarding the department’s decision-making criteria for firearm disability relief actions,” was filed on September 25. That the response was not made sooner is due to the government shutdown of October and November.
DOJ’s December 19 standard denial answer submitted to the court says it has no intention of providing its criteria for rights restoration unless ordered to do so, and Stamboulieh will meet and confer with the Assistant US Attorney on the case to discuss what the next steps are.
Pirro’s position is consistent with not just the DOJ’s bipolar inconsistency on the Second Amendment, but also her own.
In 2000, as Westchester County (NY) District Attorney, she administered a “gun buyback/amnesty” program. In 2004, she joined with New Yorkers Against Gun Violence “to commemorate the five-year anniversary of the Columbine High School Massacre… and strengthening of the federal assault weapons ban.” By 2006, with her sights set on higher political office, she began trying to distance herself by touting her gun owner creds. By 2013, she was wowing the crowd at NRA’s Second Amendment Leadership Conference, and then in 2019, she was arguing for “expanded background checks” while asserting, “I’m in Australia, they don’t have problems like this. This is starting to be a uniquely American situation. I am a gun owner and strong Second Amendment person.”
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. 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.
Even if DOJ does manage to come up with a clearly defined rights restoration process (and if Republicans survive the midterms and retain the presidency in ’28), don’t look for that to be the end of anything. Expect Democrat states to not recognize restored rights and for further legislation and court battles to go on and on and on. Which is why gun owners serious about their rights will never be able to relax regardless of who’s “in power,” and must forever commit themselves to “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.”
“Everyone.” Not just Everytown.
The DOJ answer to the complaint follows:
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.
from https://ift.tt/zUtpLm7
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment