Why You May Not Get Your Gun Rights Back After A 5250 Hold – The “Bean” Roadblock

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Bean closed the door on federal firearm rights restoration under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c).

On paper, the statute still says:

“Any person whose application for relief … is denied by the Attorney General may file a petition with the United States district court … The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice.”

Plain meaning? If the government denies you, you can go to court.
What the Court did in Bean: They read in new words—“denied on the merits.”

That one gloss rewrote the law and rendered the relief process a dead letter.

Why the Reasoning Was Flawed

1. Text vs. Gloss

   • Statute says only “denied.”

   • Court added “denied after an agency merits review.”

   • That interpretation contradicted the plain English text.

2. Separation of Powers

   • Congress left §925(c) on the books but defunded ATF’s ability to act.

   • The Court said: “No ATF action, no judicial review.”

   • Effect: Congress nullified a statutory remedy by appropriations rider—without repeal. That undercuts the separation of powers balance.

3. Equal Protection Concerns

   • Some prohibited persons (e.g., felons with expungements or state relief) can regain rights.

   • Others, especially those under §922(g)(4) (mental-health commitments), have no path at all.

   • Courts rubber-stamped this under rational-basis review, but the inequity remains glaring.

4. Judicial Activism in Restraint’s Clothing

   • Thomas’s unanimous opinion framed this as “judicial restraint”—courts shouldn’t act without an agency record.

   • But by rewriting “denial” into “merits denial,” the Court didn’t restrain itself—it actively changed the law’s function.

   • Critics across the spectrum call Bean a prime example of judicial activism undermining Congress’s text.

Why This Still Matters Today

• State vs. Federal Mismatch: In California, most 5250 firearm bans expire after five years. But federally, those same records trigger a lifetime bar with no relief mechanism.

• NICS Denials: Clients who “wait out” their California ban often discover that the FBI still blocks them at the counter.

• Revived Debate: With Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022) reshaping Second Amendment law, lifetime bans with no pathway to restoration look increasingly vulnerable. Some lower courts are beginning to entertain “as-applied” challenges.

• DOJ’s 2025 Proposal: The Department of Justice has floated reviving §925(c) relief by rule. Whether that survives politics or litigation remains to be seen. Until then, Bean’s shadow governs.

Our Approach

At our Firm, we combine two strategies:

• Challenge faulty foundations: Many 5250 certifications are procedurally defective (no valid 5150 first, no probable-cause hearing, incomplete records). If the “commitment” itself was invalid, the federal bar may never have lawfully attached.

• Leverage constitutional arguments: Post-Bruen, we argue that permanent disarmament with no relief path is unconstitutional as applied to recovered individuals.

• Prepare the evidentiary record: Current medical evaluations, compliance history, and expert reports build the kind of case courts are beginning to take seriously.

Bottom Line for Clients

• California relief may restore your state rights—but federal law can still block you.

• The Supreme Court’s decision in Bean was built on faulty reasoning, and it left people in limbo.

• Until Congress or DOJ revives a functioning process, your best chance is a lawyer who knows how to attack the foundation, navigate the state/federal mismatch, and frame modern constitutional arguments.

📞 Contact us today for a confidential case review.