C.F.R. » Title 27 » CHAPTER II—BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › SUBCHAPTER B—FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION › PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION › Subpart I—Exemptions, Seizures, and Forfeitures

27 C.F.R. § 478.144

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Clifford Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 837 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clifford Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 837 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “130 (a)(1); 27 C.F.R. § 478.144 (b) (providing that “[a]n application for such relief shall be filed .”
Clifford Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 775 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “See 27 C.F.R. § 478.144 . All applications from individuals, for instance, must contain written statements from three references and written authorization for ATF to obtain pertinent background records.”
Bryan Range v. Attorney Gen. United States, 124 F.4th 218 (3rd Cir. 2024). “§ 925 (c); 27 C.F.R. § 478.144 (d). 57 Congress defunded the ATF program in 1992.”
Coram v. The State of Illinois, 2013 IL 113867 (Ill. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 925 (c) (2006)) and regulations ( 27 C.F.R. § 478.144 (2009)), and throughout Illinois’ FOID Card Act, whether “the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest.”
Coram v. State of Illinois, 2013 IL 113867 (Ill. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 925 (c) (2006)) and regulations ( 27 C.F.R. § 478.144 (2009)), and throughout Illinois’ FOID Card Act, whether “the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest.”
United States v. Holt, 464 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 2006). “” 27 C.F.R. § 478.144 (c)(5) (2006). Judicial review is available in cases in which the Attorney General denies relief.”
Kelerchian v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (E.D. Pa. 2023). · cites it 4× “§§ 922 (g), 925(b); 27 C.F.R. § 478.144 (i)(1). The Gun Control Act of 1968 bans certain classes of persons, including felons, from possessing, receiving, or transporting firearms.”
Vahan Kelerchian v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Fire (3rd Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 925(c), 27 C.F.R. § 478.144 , [ATF’s] statutory authority, and the Administrative Procedures Act [(APA)].”
Von Drake v. United States, 441 F. Supp. 2d 779 (E.D. Tex. 2006). “1 The Attorney General delegates the authority to reinstate firearm rights and privileges to the ATF.”
Clifford Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't (6th Cir. 2016). “130 (a)(1); 27 C.F.R. § 478.144 (b) (providing that “[a]n application for such relief shall be filed .”
Kelerchian v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (E.D. Pa. 2020). “§ 925 (b); see also 27 C.F.R. § 478.144 (i)(1). In crafting the Act, Congress initially provided a mechanism for convicted felons to attempt to restore their firearms privileges.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.