Euler Posted April 21, 2026 at 01:45 AM Author Posted April 21, 2026 at 01:45 AM On April 6, the case was also recaptioned Atkinson v Blanche.
Euler Posted May 7, 2026 at 03:57 AM Author Posted May 7, 2026 at 03:57 AM (edited) On April 6, 2026 at 01:23 AM CDT, Euler said:→On April 2 in appellate court, Atkinson asked for an extension to file his brief. The court granted the extension and set the following schedule: 5/01: Atkinson's brief due 6/01: government's response due 6/22: Atkinson's reply, if any, due On May 2, Atkinson filed his brief with apologies for being a bit late. The court allowed it and amended the schedule as follows: 6/03: government's response due 6/24: Atkinson's reply, if any, due The court also began the process for scheduling arguments. The tentative argument schedule will probably be determined/announced sometime around June 10. Edited May 7, 2026 at 04:08 AM by Euler
Euler Posted May 16, 2026 at 02:46 AM Author Posted May 16, 2026 at 02:46 AM On May 11 in appellate court, the government asked for an extension to file its response. On May 12, the court granted the extension as follows: 7/06: government's response due 7/27: Atkinson's reply, if any, due
Euler Posted May 28, 2026 at 09:13 PM Author Posted May 28, 2026 at 09:13 PM ISRA is reporting in its weekly bulletin today that Atkinson has had his 2A rights restored through the DOJ's new administrative procedure (the one lifted from the perpetually zero-funded ATF procedure). The dockets do not reflect that restoration, if true.
Euler Posted May 31, 2026 at 08:57 AM Author Posted May 31, 2026 at 08:57 AM On May 29 in appellate court, Atkinson moved to have the court vacate the lower court's decision, dismiss the case as moot, and order the lower court to do the same.
Euler Posted June 10, 2026 at 07:01 AM Author Posted June 10, 2026 at 07:01 AM On June 8 in appellate court, the court granted the motion to vacate the lower court's decision, to dismiss the case as moot, and to order the lower court to do the same.
Euler Posted June 10, 2026 at 08:04 AM Author Posted June 10, 2026 at 08:04 AM (edited) OCR'd from the motion supplement: DOJ letter said:Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530 May 18, 2026 Dear Mr. Atkinson: I have received your request for relief from federal firearm disabilities under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). That provision authorizes me to grant relief from the disabilities imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) on possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition where the applicant has established that "the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of relief would not be contrary to the public interest." Your request for relief from federal firearms disabilities indicates that you are subject to the federal firearm disability in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits individuals from possessing firearms if they have previously been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Having reviewed all the relevant facts, including that your prior conviction was for an offense that was neither violent nor associated with violence; that substantial time has passed since the completion of your sentence (including the successful completion of any period of parole or supervised release); that you have not been arrested for or convicted of any additional disqualifying crimes since your disqualifying conviction; and that there are no other facts of concern, I have concluded that the investigation shows nothing to indicate that you are likely to act in a manner danger to public safety if allowed to possess firearms. I have also concluded that relieving you from the federal firearm disability in Section 922(g)(1) is not contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), I hereby grant you of relief of the federal firearm disability imposed as a result of your prior criminal conviction. You are cautioned that this action provides relief only with respect to the federal firearm disability arising from your prior criminal conviction. It does not relieve you from any firearm disabilities to which you may be subject under state laws, territorial or tribal laws, or local ordinances. Nor does it relieve you from any federal firearm disability you may incur in the future, such as by sustaining an additional conviction for an offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. Please note that it may take up to several business days for this grant of relief to be reflected in the FBI's firearms background system (NICS). Notice of this relief will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). Sincerely, Todd Blanche Acting Attorney General Edited June 10, 2026 at 08:06 AM by Euler
John Q Public Posted June 10, 2026 at 03:18 PM Posted June 10, 2026 at 03:18 PM SO he got relief for his case, but in a way that only allows it for him?
Euler Posted June 10, 2026 at 09:59 PM Author Posted June 10, 2026 at 09:59 PM (edited) Yes. Also it's in a way that I would expect to be shut down the next time there's a (D) president. It's probably not unreasonable to assume that the next budget passed by Congress will include a broader prohibition on 18 USC 925(c) relief. Past and current budgets have prohibited only the ATF from granting 18 USC 925(c) relief. Edited June 11, 2026 at 10:28 PM by Euler
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now