The Department of Justice’s handling of Mel Gibson’s gun rights has sparked controversy, raising questions about fairness, political influence, and 2A rights.
According to former DOJ pardon attorney Liz Oyer, she was fired after refusing to add Gibson to a list of individuals recommended for firearm rights restoration.
The DOJ, however, denies her claims:
Former employees who violate their ethical duties by making false accusations on press tours will not be tolerated. This former employee’s version of events is false. Her decision to voice this erroneous accusation about her dismissal is in direct violation of her ethical duties as an attorney. It is a shameful distraction from our critical mission to prosecute violent crime, enforce our nation’s immigration laws, and make America safe again.
The Case for Restoration
- Gibson’s conviction: In 2011, he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor domestic violence charge.
- Time passed: Over a decade has passed since his conviction, and he has had no further legal issues.
- Other pardons: The DOJ was already reviewing cases of nonviolent offenders from 20+ years ago, making some wonder why Gibson wouldn’t qualify.
SEE ALSO: Build Your Own Precision Rifle
The Case Against Restoration
- Nature of the conviction: Domestic violence convictions typically result in a lifetime firearm prohibition under U.S. law.
- Process bypassed?: Unlike others on the list, Gibson never formally applied for a pardon—his attorney requested special consideration due to his relationship with the president.
- DOJ pushback: Oyer claims she was instructed to add Gibson without justification beyond political connections.
The Bigger Question
This case isn’t just about Gibson—it raises broader concerns about who qualifies for gun rights restoration and whether political influence plays a role in these decisions.
So, should Mel Gibson have his gun rights restored? Or does this case expose a flawed, politically-driven process?
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
Anyone convicted of any crime (in a real legal system) should be allowed to be restored with the caveat that any who want those rights restored after abusing them must be willing to suffer ANY future actions that must be levied against the person should they be convicted again. The purpose of the justice system should be to give restitution to the victim (the STATE should NEVER be able to claim victimhood), and to keep convicted perpetrators from creating any further victims. Those who want to give perpetrators another chance must put their lives in the mix. They must be confident enough in their decision to re-instate, that they are willing to suffer any restitution or cessation of right that would be again inflicted on the recidivist.
Big difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. Rights should be restored, though I am not a fan of Mel Gibson.
If Mr. Gibson has served his sentence, has NOT RE-OFFENDED, NOT been fairly treated under the law, and if this state attorney VIOLATED orders from her SUPERIORS to add Mr. Gibson to the State list for restoration of his Second Amendment Rights, then Mr. Gibson’s GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms MUST IMMEDIATELY BE RESTORED POST HASTE, and he should have EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO SUE THE STATE for ILLEGAL, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT of his 2A rights!!
NO
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” ….. IT AIN’T COMPLICATED.
.E.V.E.R.Y.B.O.D.Y. SHOULD HAVE THEIR RIGHTS RESTORED.
YES RESTORE HIS RIGHTS AND JAIL THE COMMIE WI TCH
System is broken, no pathway to get rights back.
We have police officers that pled guilty to a charge of domestic violence back 30 years or more ago. They pled guilty because it was a $25 dollar fine. They lost their jobs many years later because they couldn’t possess a firearm and because the country passed a law retroactive back to when time began. Even though in some cases they were still married to the spouse that they had the domestic dispute with and that spouse admitted they were not assaulted and she made it up. Nor has there ever been any further problems in the 30 plus years later. Still these officers can not possess a firearm and are not allowed to work in law enforcement because of it. If they don’t get a pass I don’t think Mr Gibson should either. Personally I do not see how you can pass a law retroactive back in time. I can see passing it on the date it was signed into law. But If these people knew at the time it was going to be a felony and not just a 25 dollar fine they would have never pled guilty to the crime. They would have gotten representation and fought it. Seems very unfair to me.
I agree with that. I always wondered why this was the only misdemeanor that could result in the loss of a civil right. If it was that important, it should have been made a felony in the first place. Always smelled like the political move it was.
This is an obvious one.
1st, I think that many cases should reinstate firearms rights & privileges.
But, this looks like an open process that leaves so little guidance that it’s ripe for political and personal abuse, therefore, there must be a stringent process of reinstatement that compares the past with the current to protect the future. There needs to be almost no wiggle room but thought out really well.
Political connections should NEVER influence the DOJ decisions. I don’t care if it’s a republican or democratic congress. And by the way, these presidential pardons should be unlawful as well as it nullifies the long, expensive, (usually) correct sentencing due to hard work of prosecutors just to free political, personal friends and family (Biden) from serving the usually truncated time they should be serving
Insufficient facts to justify any sort of conclusion. What was the nature of the incident that led to the arrest and conviction? It could have been significant, plead down to a misdemeanor, or no more than a shove, or grabbing an arm without evidence of injury during an argument. Few people recognize that no more than an unconsented to touching can result in a DV misdemeanor conviction. And for those minor cases with no repeat offenses for years afterwards, consideration should be given to a rights restoration. The same idea as where someone convicted of a nonviolent felony (welfare fraud 40 years earlier with a negative criminal history thereafter) justified restoration of gun rights.
Mel Gibson is a good film director but not a strong 2A supporter. I’m not sure of all the details in this case but I would tend to believe that a left-over lefty from the fake POTUS (genuine POS) administration was already slated for a dismissal. Too bad, so sad.
I still remember where a case where one unarmed veteran named Ashli Babbit was shot in the face by a Capitol PO named Michael Byrd. Byrd has a very tarnished LE record, yet he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for murdering Babbit.
Would love to hear Liz Oyer’s take on that left wing cover up to gage her real character.
give him his rights back, it’s not like he “accidentally” not pull the trigger when the bad gun decided to kill a camera person and still have his rights