18 U.S.C. § 925A

Remedy for erroneous denial of firearm

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person denied a firearm pursuant to subsection (s) or (t) of section 922—(1) due to the provision of erroneous information relating to the person by any State or political subdivision thereof, or by the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act; or(2) who was not prohibited from receipt of a firearm pursuant to subsection (g) or (n) of section 922,may bring an action against the State or political subdivision responsible for providing the erroneous information, or responsible for denying the transfer, or against the United States, as the case may be, for an order directing that the erroneous information be corrected or that the transfer be approved, as the case may be. In any action under this section, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.(Added Pub. L. 103–159, title I, § 104(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1543.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, referred to in par. (1), is section 103 of Pub. L. 103–159, which is classified to section 40901 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Ross v. Fed. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, 903 F. Supp. 2d 333 (D. Maryland 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ross v. Fed. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, 903 F. Supp. 2d 333 (D. Maryland 2012). · cites it 9× “2011), the Court dismissed all of Ross’s claims, save for the allegation that he was erroneously prevented from purchasing a firearm, granting Ross leave to file an Amended Complaint to flesh out a claim for erroneous denial of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925A. The Court…”

Enos v. Holder, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (E.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 4× “# 61) that Plaintiffs may add the United States of America as a defendant, to satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 925A. Accordingly, “Defendants” in this order includes the United States of America.”

Patrick Atkinson v. Merrick B. Garland, 70 F.4th 1018 (7th Cir. 2023). “” So he brought this suit under 18 U.S.C. § 925A to challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) as the law ap- plied to him.”

Siperek v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (W.D. Wash. 2017). · cites it 4× “Accordingly, on March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925A. Dkt. 1. B. Legal Framework for Restricting Plaintiff’s Possession of Firearms Under 18 U.”

Robinson v. New Jersey Mercer Cnty. Vicinage-Fam. Div., 514 F. App'x 146 (3rd Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, despite Robinson’s contentions to the contrary, 18 U.S.C. § 925A does not represent an abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity and a congressional authorization of suits against states.”

Ass'n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Port Auth., 730 F.3d 252 (3rd Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “It is noteworthy in this regard that in 18 U.S.C. § 925A, a statute under the same title and one section away from § 926A, Congress provided a specific civil remedy to people who are subject to the “erroneous denial of [a] firearm,” saying, that such a person may bring an action…”

Ross v. Fed. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, 807 F. Supp. 2d 362 (D. Maryland 2011). · cites it 3× “What Ross presumably has in mind is to allege a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 925A, the provision of the GCA that establishes a private right of action for “[a]ny person denied a firearm” under the GCA’s background check provision (Section 922(t)).”

Carpenter v. Long, 2011 Ohio 5414 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Therefore, res judicata does not bar him from seeking 16 relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925A on the basis that mistaken information wrongly deprived him of the ability to purchase a firearm.”

Frank Van Der Hule v. Eric Holder, Jr., 759 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2014). “Van der hule then filed suit for a declaratory judgment under 18 U.S.C. § 925A, requesting that the court order the Attorney General to approve the proposed firearm transfer to Van der hule.”

Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 93 F.4th 122 (3rd Cir. 2024). “7 While LEOSA may not require states to issue LEOSA 7 New Jersey notes that LEOSA’s neighboring statute, 18 U.S.C. § 925A, provides a limited remedy for individuals erroneously denied a firearm.”

Eibler v. Dep't of Treas., Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 311 F. Supp. 2d 618 (N.D. Ohio 2004). · cites it 2× “LAW AND ANALYSIS Eibler brings this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925A, alleging that he was wrongfully denied a firearm purchase.”

Brent Smith v. United States, 63 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2023). “” Invoking the civil remedy Congress created in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,1 Smith then filed this civil action against the United States under 18 U.”

Show all 50 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 925A(1) — 3 cases

Ross v. Fed. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, 807 F. Supp. 2d 362 (D. Maryland 2011). “What Ross presumably has in mind is to allege a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 925A, the provision of the GCA that establishes a private right of action for “[a]ny person denied a firearm” under the GCA’s background check provision (Section 922(t)).”

Brinson v. Garland (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Ragan v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation Nat'l Instant Crim. Background Check Sys. Section (D. Maryland 2025).

— 18 U.S.C. § 925A(2) — 3 cases

Ass'n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Port Auth., 730 F.3d 252 (3rd Cir. 2013). “It is noteworthy in this regard that in 18 U.S.C. § 925A, a statute under the same title and one section away from § 926A, Congress provided a specific civil remedy to people who are subject to the “erroneous denial of [a] firearm,” saying, that such a person may bring an action…”

Enos v. Holder, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (E.D. Cal. 2012). “# 61) that Plaintiffs may add the United States of America as a defendant, to satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 925A. Accordingly, “Defendants” in this order includes the United States of America.”

Bowen v. United States (S.D. Ga. 2021).

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.