Our firm was able to secure relief for a client under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), not by waiting for the system to function, but by forcing the issue into a forum where it had to be addressed. As of this writing in April 2026, only a very small number of individuals nationwide have successfully obtained 925(c) relief under the current administration, and the program itself continues to operate without fully implemented regulations to make it widely available.
More often than not, when individuals seek relief under 925(c), they often approach the process as a simple request, submit some information, wait, and hope for a favorable response. In reality, that approach places control in the hands of the government. At COHEN|HARRIS LLC, we have seen firsthand that a different strategy, pairing a federal lawsuit with a 925(c) application, fundamentally changes the dynamic and creates the leverage necessary to achieve results.
The core problem with filing a 925(c) application alone is that it invites delay and indifference. The government can deny the request with little explanation, defer action indefinitely, or simply treat the application as one of many in a backlog. There are no meaningful deadlines and no real consequences for inaction. In that posture, the applicant is asking for relief, but the government has no obligation to meaningfully engage.
That dynamic changes when a lawsuit is filed. Litigation imposes structure. It creates deadlines that must be met, requires responses that must be articulated, and places the dispute before a court that has an obligation to move the case forward. What was once a discretionary administrative review becomes a contested legal issue. Instead of asking the government to reconsider, the plaintiff is now requiring the government to justify its position under the law.
This shift carries practical consequences. Once litigation begins, the government must evaluate not only the underlying issue but also the cost of defending its position. That includes the time and resources required to litigate, the risk of an adverse ruling, and the potential for broader implications if the issue is decided unfavorably. When a case presents a strong legal argument supported by a developed factual record, the government is often forced to confront a simple question: whether it is more efficient to continue litigating or to resolve the matter.
How does the lawsuit and 925(c) combo work?
Our recent success illustrates how this strategy works in practice. We began that case by developing a clear record through state-level proceedings, where it became evident that the client was not prohibited under state law and that the alleged disability was purely federal in nature. That distinction mattered, because it allowed us to isolate the source of the issue and eliminate the common cycle of agencies redirecting responsibility elsewhere. When federal agencies nonetheless responded with their standard irrelevant deflections, we used those responses as further evidence of the problem.
Armed with the record produced in the state-level proceeding, we filed a federal lawsuit asserting that the client had, in fact, regained the rights necessary to remove the federal prohibition. The case encountered resistance, including dismissals on technical grounds, but we continued to press forward, refiling where necessary and pursuing the matter through appeal. Throughout that process, we maintained pressure, complied with every deadline, and forced the government to engage with the merits of the issue.
Ultimately, while the case was pending at the appellate level, the government reconsidered its position and granted 925(c) relief, with the approval formalized at the highest levels. Notably, this occurred around the same day the government was required to respond to our litigation, underscoring the role that timing and pressure played in achieving the outcome.
The application of strategy and consistency makes for success
The lesson is not limited to Second Amendment cases. The same strategic principle applies across a wide range of civil rights and administrative law contexts. Agencies may decline to act on requests, but they cannot ignore litigation. When a claim is supported by a strong legal and factual foundation, pairing administrative relief with a lawsuit creates a framework in which delay becomes difficult, and resolution becomes the more practical option.
At COHEN|HARRIS LLC, we approach these cases with the understanding that success often depends not only on the strength of the argument, but on the strategy used to present it. Building a record, identifying the true source of the issue, and applying pressure in the appropriate forum are all essential components of that strategy. Just as importantly, persistence matters. Legal systems often resist change, and meaningful results frequently come only after continued, disciplined effort.
A 925(c) application, standing alone, is a request. When paired with a lawsuit, it becomes part of a broader strategy that creates accountability, imposes structure, and shifts leverage. For individuals seeking to restore their rights or challenge an improper federal firearms determination, that distinction can make all the difference.
If you are facing the denial of your 2nd Amendment right, COHEN|HARRIS LLC is available to evaluate your situation and develop a strategic approach tailored to your case.
Roland S. Harris IV, Esq.
Senior Partner
COHEN|HARRIS LLC
Co-Author of the Maryland Use of Force Handbook