Why Did Mel Gibson Lose Gun Rights in 2011? Reason Explained

by

As a gamer diving into some real-life events, I’m revisiting the story of Mel Gibson, a fellow movie enthusiast and gaming buddy (at least in the world of action flicks). His right to bear arms, a privilege we both cherish as gamers who often blur the line between virtual and reality, was stripped away back in 2011. Now, the issue is resurfacing again, sparked by claims that the U.S. Justice Department’s pardon attorney was let go over this very matter. So, let’s delve into why Mel Gibson lost his gun rights all those years ago.

Mel Gibson lost his gun rights after conviction in 2011

In 2011, the actor who played Mad Max, Mel Gibson, was barred from possessing firearms due to his misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence. Under U.S. legislation, individuals convicted of certain offenses, including those involving domestic violence, are not allowed to own guns. Given this, it’s logical that Gibson lost his right to own guns in 2011.

Initially, there were reports suggesting that a 69-year-old actor was under consideration for a recommendation on a list of 95 individuals who had lost their gun rights due to criminal records. This information, along with other details, was brought to light by Elizabeth G. Oyer, a former pardon attorney. Her revelations have sparked concerns about public safety and the discussion has included the actor’s name once more.

As reported by The Times, a January letter was sent by Gibson’s lawyer to DOJ officials McHenry and Bove from Oyer, arguing for the reinstatement of Gibson’s firearm privileges. The letter pointed out Gibson’s “unique presidential appointment” and his history of “highly successful films” as reasons for this request.

According to Oyer, returning guns to individuals with a history of domestic abuse is a significant concern. She emphasized that this isn’t something she can treat casually or recommend lightly because there are real, potentially harmful outcomes when such individuals possess firearms.

In the case of Oyer, although her firm stand emphasized public safety and current laws, it didn’t receive a favorable reaction. Moreover, Oyer claimed that her firm opposition to reinstating Gibson’s gun rights sparked an unsettling confrontation. When she refused to yield, it is said that a senior official under Deputy AG Todd Blanche shifted from being cordial to patronizing and ultimately aggressive.

Later on, the official subtly implied a warning, stating that Gibson’s “personal connection with President Trump” could influence her decision-making, and suggested it would be prudent for her to endorse the restoration, hinting at potential consequences if she did not.

Read More

2025-03-12 16:41