Today we filed suit against the Attorney General, USA and the FBI for more NICS denials

The FBI simply must fix its NICS appeals system. After it was reported that the FBI stopped processing firearms denials in early 2016, we filed a FOIA for that information. It was recently received. We have had at least a hundred people contact us to help vindicate their rights in court. So, today we filed a lawsuit on behalf of five individual plaintiffs from across the country that were erroneously denied their firearms purchase. Of interest, there are two suppressor denials in here as well. The Complaint is attached for your review. We will update the public as we receive more information.

We have also alleged that even if the government provides the relief sought in the complaint, that the Court should retain jurisdiction due to this issue:

However, the Defendants and FBI in particular, is improperly shifting their burden to the individual to follow up with various courts or jurisdictions.This is the same scenario found in , 903 F. Supp. 2d 333, 341 (D. Md. 2012).In , the district court found that the defendant was improperly shifting the burden and that:

[t]he regulations make clear that the burden falls on the NICS Section to conduct additional research "to determine whether the prospective transferee is disqualified from possessing a firearm by Federal or state law." 28 C.F.R. § 25.6(c)(1). The NICS Section has three business days to ascertain whether a buyer's criminal record bars receipt of a firearm, and if it is unable to make a final decision, the FFL can transfer the firearm to the purchaser.

Id. at fn. 13.

This has been an ongoing issue with Defendants and they have been on notice as early as May 8, 2016 when the case , in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00865-ABJ was filed. Since that case, four others were filed: , in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00839-KBJ; , in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01510-APM; and , in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01425-APM.

All the aforementioned cases were filed and then quickly the government defendant(s) “voluntarily” provided the relief sought in the actions.All five plaintiffs in those cases were granted their certificates to purchase their firearms.This essentially mooted those cases, yet it is apparent that the issues underlying the present action are evading review and are repeating day in and day out.

You can read the Complaint here.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
No tags yet.
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square



​​​​​This website has been prepared by Stamboulieh Law​, PLLC for informational purposes only. The information contained herein is not legal advice, and recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should not rely on the information contained herein without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. Viewing this site or communicating with a Stamboulieh Law, PLLC attorney via e-mail, through this site or otherwise, does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between Stamboulieh Law, PLLC and any person or entity. Confidential information should not be sent to the firm without the prior approval of the firm, and the content of any correspondence sent via the Internet will not be considered or maintained as confidential unless such approval is obtained.​


​​​​© 2019 by Stamboulieh Law, PLLC.