DOJ Withholds Rights Restoration Records Citing Privacy Concerns - Ammoland.com

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.

Click the link to read the whole article:  DOJ Withholds Records Citing Privacy Concerns

How Monday Can Take Us Back to the Beginning - Washington Gun Law

How the Wolford Opinion Just Changed Everything - Washington Gun Law

Supreme Court Says Courts Can’t Smuggle Gun Control Into Bruen Step One - Ammoland.com

The Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark ruling in Wolford v. Lopez that struck down Hawaii’s so-called “vampire law,” but the decision’s impact extends far beyond that single victory. The opinion provides crucial clarification that lower courts cannot employ certain procedural strategies to evade rulings against restrictive gun control measures.

On the surface, Wolford addresses whether private property owners must post “gun welcome” signs before individuals may lawfully carry firearms on their premises. However, like many other landmark Second Amendment decisions, Wolford transcends this narrow issue. It delivers important guidance on how courts must properly apply the constitutional framework established in Bruen and Heller.

Bruen Step One Just Got Harder to Beat

The most significant clarification is that courts may no longer shoehorn gun-control reasoning into Step One of the Bruen analysis.

Step One focuses strictly on the plain text of the Second Amendment. If the regulated individual is part of “the people” and the arm in question is “bearable,” the conduct is presumptively protected. Liberal courts have repeatedly attempted to dismiss cases at this early stage by asserting that certain popular arms, such as AR-15-style rifles, fall outside constitutional protection.

Click the link to read the whole article:  Supreme Court Says Courts Can’t Smuggle Gun Control 

What the ATF Calls a Machine Gun - CRS Firearms