What has AG Bondi done to comply with this EO?

�

AG Bondi issued OLP-179 AG Order No. 6212-2025, Interim Final Rule effective March 20, 2025 with request for comments to be submitted by June 18, 2025:

�

This interim final rule (�IFR�) amends the Department of Justice (�Department�) regulations relating to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (�ATF�) by withdrawing effectively moribund regulations regarding how ATF will adjudicate applications for relief from the disabilities imposed by certain firearms laws and withdrawing a related delegation. . . .

�

Section II. Background B. Withdrawal of Delegation of Authority to ATF To Implement 18 U.S.C. 925(c) expounds:

ATF, which currently has regulatory authority to act on applications made under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), has been forbidden from utilizing any of its appropriated funds for staffing to process requests by individuals for over 30 years. The Department respects congressional appropriations prerogatives, and it expects its forthcoming plan under Executive Order 14206 to include legislative proposals to modify or rescind the rider. It is also undertaking a broader examination of how to address the drain on resources that caused Congress to impose the rider in the first instance, including by addressing any potential inefficiencies in the regulatory process created by 26 CFR 178.144. Although the specific contours of any new approach to the implementation of 18 U.S.C. 925(c) may be refined through future rulemaking, the Attorney General has determined, in an exercise of her discretion under the HSA and 28 U.S.C. 509-510, that the appropriate first step is to withdraw the delegation to ATF to administer section 925(c) and withdraw the moribund regulations governing individual applications to ATF for 18 U.S.C. 925(c) relief. Consistent with that rider, the process described under 27 CFR 178.144 will not be transferred to any other agency or Department. At the same time, the statute speaks clearly that the authority provided in 18 U.S.C. 925(c) is conferred on the Attorney General, and no applicable statute restricts the Attorney General's authority in these circumstances to delegate that authority or withdraw a prior delegation or amend prior rules. Thus, the Attorney General is withdrawing her delegation of authority to ATF to implement 18 U.S.C. 925(c) by revising a delegation of authority in 28 CFR 0.130 and removing 27 CFR 478.144. Revising 28 CFR 0.130 and removing 27 CFR 478.144 further provides the Department a clean slate on which to build a new approach to implementing 18 U.S.C. 925(c) without the baggage of no-longer-necessary procedures�e.g., a requirement to file an application �in triplicate,� 27 CFR 478.144(b). With such a clean slate, the Department anticipates future actions, including rulemaking consistent with applicable law, to give full effect to 18 U.S.C. 925(c) while simultaneously ensuring that violent or dangerous individuals remain disabled from lawfully acquiring firearms.

�

�

Then, on March 27, 2025, AG Bondi announced an investigation into Los Angeles County, California to determine if the County is

�

engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights. . . . In response to recent Supreme Court caselaw, California enacted new legislation to further restrict the ability of ordinary, law-abiding Californians to keep and bear arms.

�

The DOJ has determined that Los Angeles County has onerous rules regarding the process of establishing firearms ownership/restrictions wherein it takes years for applicants to have their firearms requests processed. Including requests for restoration of civil rights.

�

Let�s keep in mind that the US Supreme Court, in Beecham v US, 511 US 368(1994) found

�

Petitioners can take advantage of � 921(a)(20) only if their civil rights have been restored under federal law, the law of the jurisdiction where the earlier proceedings were held. The choice-of-Iaw clause is logically read to apply to the exemption clause. The inquiry throughout the statutory scheme is whether the person has a qualifying conviction on his record. The choice-of-Iaw clause defines the rule for determining what constitutes a conviction. Asking, under the exemption clause, whether a person's civil rights have been restored is just one step in determining whether something should "be considered a conviction," a determination that, by the terms of the choice-of-Iaw clause, is governed by the law of the convicting jurisdiction. That the other three items listed in the exemption clause are either always or almost always done by the jurisdiction of conviction also counsels in favor of interpreting civil rights restoration as possessing the same attribute. This statutory structure rebuts the arguments used by other Circuits to support their conclusion that the two clauses should be read separately. Moreover, even if there is no federal law procedure for restoring civil rights to federal felons, nothing in � 921(a)(20) supports the assumption that Congress intended all felons to have access to all the procedures specified in the exemption clause, especially because there are many States that do not restore civil rights, either. Because the statutory language is unambiguous, the rule of lenity is inapplicable. See Chapman v. United States, 500 U. S. 453, 463-464. Pp.370-374.

�

We shall see how far AG Bondi can intercede in Los Angeles County, CA.�I think if they are successful in California, they will go after NY next. Why, because this is where President Trump lost his 2nd Amendment Rights following the sham trial prior to his re-election to the Presidency.

�

VIDEO:�DOJ Declares WAR on Anti-Gun States?! California BUSTED for 2A Violations! April 1, 2025

�