DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

March 19, 2025 

Washington, D.C. – The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an Interim Final Rule removing the Attorney General’s delegation of authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to process applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). This action follows more than three decades of Congressional funding restrictions that have rendered ATF unable to process individual applications. 

The rule removes outdated regulations and is part of a broader review of firearm-related policies under Executive Order 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights). Upon the interim final rule’s expected publication tomorrow, the DOJ will begin allowing individuals who are not “dangerous to public safety” to use the statute and petition to have their gun rights restored. 

Key Points of the Rule Change: 

  • Since 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from using funds to process gun rights restoration applications, making the statute obsolete. 
  • ATF will no longer handle individual firearm disability relief applications under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). DOJ will instead carry out the statute and process petitions for gun rights restoration. 
  • The DOJ rule goes into effect immediately upon publication and will simultaneously accept public comments on the rule before issuing a final version. 

Gun Owners of America remains committed to monitoring this process and ensuring that any future policies respect the constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens. 

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: 

“For decades, law-abiding Americans who have had their gun rights unfairly restricted have been left in legal limbo—creating an unconstitutional de facto lifetime gun ban. This bureaucratic failure has denied thousands of individuals their lawful opportunity to restore their rights. The DOJ’s decision to finally withdraw ATF’s authority in this matter is an encouraging sign that this administration is serious about protecting the Second Amendment for all Americans.” 

Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: 

“Since its enactment in 1992, Gun Owners of America has fought against the ‘Schumer Amendment’ which defunded the federal gun rights restoration statute. GOA and thousands of would-be gun owners are grateful to President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for once again allowing gun owners to petition to have their gun rights restored by the Department of Justice. We hope to see many more infringements repealed as the federal government carries out President Trump’s executive order Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” 

Gun Rights Lawyer Named ATF’s New Chief Legal Counsel

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) unveiled its new Chief Legal Counsel.

Robert Leider will take over duties as the top lawyer of the ATF. The appointment is a sharp change of course from former Chief Counsel Pamela Hicks. Ms. Hicks’s views on guns were in line with groups like Everytown and Brady. Mr. Leider takes a more liberty-based approach to guns. The appointment of Leider to the position saw an outpouring of joy from gun rights activists.

Mr. Leider was an assistant professor at George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School, where he taught a class on the Second Amendment. Before becoming a professor, he worked for powerhouse law firm Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP. He also clerked for Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. Mr. Leider lists his interests as the right of self-defense and the Second Amendment.

“Underneath this debate over which “arms” the Second Amendment protects is a critical dispute about the contemporary purpose of the Second Amendment,” Leider wrote. “Illinois is essentially arguing that the Second Amendment exclusively protects individual self-defense against crime. The State understands Heller to have divorced entirely the right to keep and bear arms from the Second Amendment.”

Mr. Leider has also argued against the “Gun Free Zone Act.” The “Gun Free Zone Act” would have made any property within 1000 feet of a school a “sensitive area.” He argued that the law would strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights just because they live near a school. He claims such a law would fail a Bruen test and be unconstitutional.

Mr. Leider also has penned articles that advocated the stripping of qualified immunity from those state officers who resist the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling. If qualified immunity was removed from these state officers, it could open people like New York State Governor Kathy Hochul to legal action. States have passed laws inconsistent with Bruen since SCOTUS ruled on the case.

“In former may issue states, gun owners will face substantial legal risks when exercising their rights,” Leider wrote. “But the legal risk may not only be on private citizens.

Despite strengthening qualified immunity in recent years, the Supreme Court has not shielded government agents who willfully seek to violate the Constitution.

New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California may find that, in bringing down the heavy hand of the State against individuals who exercise their Second Amendment rights, their own police officers will get hit by the blow. “

Mr. Leider also believes bans on the open carrying of firearms violate the Second Amendment. He states that everyone should have the right to open carry. Out of all the changes made to gun control since Trump took office, the appointment of Leider to the Chief Counsel position might be the biggest.

“The Bill of Rights isn’t about us, it’s about them. It isn’t a list of things we’re permitted to do, it’s a list of things they aren’t allowed even to consider.”
— L. Neil Smith

Keep right on talking Chuck…….

And they wonder why no one trusts them anymore.

Once upon a time, people trusted the media. When someone was questioned about where they got some fact, just responding, “I heard it on the news,” was enough to silence criticism.

In fact, distrust of the media was something used in fiction to show that an individual was a little unhinged; if not a lot unhinged.

Thanks for reading Tilting At Windmills! This post is public so feel free to share it.

I’m not saying the media was more trustworthy, mind you, only that they had that trust.

They don’t anymore. More and more people distrust the mainstream media, and the media seems to be at a loss for why. At least, I’d imagine they would be since they don’t seem to be addressing the problem, even as their viewership/readership plummets.

New media outlets tend to get a lot more traffic and have a lot more trust, but the mainstream media can’t understand why. For them, it’s something insidious and not the result of their own failures.

It started ages ago, but it ramped up during Trump’s first term when they decided it was their duty to make sure Trump was a one-term president. They stopped even pretending, and it just got worse.

This week, we had a couple of grand examples of it.

Let’s start with this one.

Image

Now, that looks pretty clear-cut, doesn’t it? Tulsi Gabbard saying Trump and Putin are tight is kind of unambiguous.

Except, it’s BS. The AP got called on it, and then posted this:

Image

That’s right. Gabbard wasn’t talking about Putin but Modi. They hoped they could get away with it, but they didn’t.

The story is now gone in that way, but the internet is forever.

But, in fairness, it’s not just the mainstream media that’s the problem. Even their new media allies engage in this, too.

The Daily Beast ran this on Monday:

The story comes from an upcoming book, apparently, which means legacy media at work, with The Daily Beast ginning up interest in it.

Now, we know that Trump has played fast and loose with marriage vows in the past, so this certainly sounds plausible. Except, it didn’t happen.

Well, it did, but not like they’re spinning it.

Continue reading “”

What’s been made crystal clear is what they would really rather Trump simply go away so they can return to their normal, everyday corruption. This includes the courts.

Chief Justice Roberts Speaks

Today, Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement:

For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

This statement follows on the heels of the Judicial Conference meeting last week, in which Judges Sutton and Sullivan raised similar alarms about impeachment:

“Impeachment shouldn’t be a short circuiting of that process,” Sullivan said. “And so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush on the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who chairs the Judicial Conference’s executive committee, echoed those comments.

“One thing worth keeping in mind is if we dilute the standards for impeachment, that’s not just a problem for judges,” Sutton said. “That’s a problem for all three branches of government.”

I think we need a sense of perspective.

Last year Representative AOC and other members of Congress introduced articles of impeachment against Justices Thomas and Alito. As best as I can recall, Roberts said nothing about this. Likewise, the Federal Judges Association and the American Bar Association said not a word about the never-ending crusade against two members of the Supreme Court. These attacks were never about disclosures. These critics were trying to delegitimize the Court. Yet, everyone was silent.

Likewise, in 2023, Senator Ron Wyden told President Biden to “ignore” any ruling from Judge Matt Kacsmaryk concerning mifepristone. We aren’t talking about turning planes around over international waters. This would be a ruling that could be timely appealed in the normal course. Yet Roberts did not say a word about this in his end-of-year address or anywhere else. The FJA, the ABA, and all the usual suspects were silent. To the contrary, the Judicial Conference acceded to the criticism of Judge Kacsmaryk by trying to force down a rule to take cases away from him! I realize that Chief Justice Roberts is hitting the panic button, but his protest has started a bit too late.

Taking a step back, I think the standard for the impeachment process has indeed been diluted. At least with regard to the presidency, the first Trump Administration demonstrated that nebulous offenses that are untethered to any actual crime were impeachable offenses. Remember “abuse of power”?

Continue reading “”

History does not provide any example of capital accumulation brought about by a government. As far as governments invested in the construction of roads, railroads, and other useful public works, the capital needed was provided by the savings of individual citizens and borrowed by the government.
– Ludwig von Mises