18 U.S.C. § 925A
Remedy for erroneous denial of firearm
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. Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives
Ross v. Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (2012)
“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 (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.”
Patrick Atkinson v. Merrick B. Garland (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 (2017)
“Accordingly, on March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925A. Dkt. 1. B.”
Robinson v. New Jersey Mercer County Vicinage-Family Division (2013)
“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.”
Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Port Authority (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…”
Ross v. Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (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)).”
Carpenter v. Long (2011)
“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. (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.”
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association v. Attorney General New Jersey (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. DEPARTMENT OF TREAS., BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS (2004)
“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 (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.S.C. § 925A seeking an order allowing him to purchase firearms and directing the FBI to correct the allegedly…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 925A(1) — 3 cases
Ross v. Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (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 (2023)
Ragan v. Federal Bureau of Investigation National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section (2025)
— 18 U.S.C. § 925A(2) — 3 cases
Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Port Authority (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 (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 (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.