1995 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-18-1995

Rice v U S Dept ATF

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 94-1547

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Rice v U S Dept ATF" (1995). 1995 Decisions. Paper 272.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995/272
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 94-1547 

___________ 

PHILIP V. RICE, 

 Appellant 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL, 

TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, 

 Appellee 

___________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil Action No. 93-cv-06107) 

___________ 

Argued: October 25, 1994 

PRESENT: STAPLETON, HUTCHINSON* and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed October 18, 1995) 

____________ 

Arthur L. Jenkins, Esquire (Argued) 

325 DeKalb Street 

P.O. Box 710 

Norristown, PA 19404-0710 

 Attorney for Appellant 

Bernadette A. McKeon, Esquire (Argued) 

Office of United States Attorney 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

2

615 Chestnut Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19106 

 Attorney for Appellee 

 

* This opinion was prepared by the Honorable William D. Hutchinson and 

approved by the panel prior to his untimely death. 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

3

____________ 

OPINION OF THE COURT 

____________ 

HUTCHINSON, Circuit Judge. 

I. Introduction

 Appellant, Philip V. Rice ("Rice"), appeals an order of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his request for judicial 

review of appellee's, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms's ("BATF"), refusal to 

process his application for relief from a firearm disability. Rice claimed that BATF acted 

contrary to the Gun Control Act of 1968 ("Act"), the Second Amendment and the Fifth 

Amendment. 

 Section 922(g)(1) of the Act prohibits persons convicted of crimes 

punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year from owning or possessing firearms. 

Rice was so convicted. Section 925(c) authorizes BATF to lift this prohibition if, after an 

investigation, it is satisfied that the convict will not be likely to act in a manner 

dangerous to public safety and that the granting of such relief would not be contrary to 

the public interest. Section 925(c) gives BATF broad discretion, but its exercise of this 

discretion is subject to judicial review. The statute does not confine a district court to 

the administrative record, but authorizes the reviewing courts to receive additional 

evidence if necessary to avoid a "miscarriage of justice." Despite BATF's authority to 

grant relief from a firearm disability, Congress in recent years has prohibited it from 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

4

spending appropriated funds to investigate such applications. 

 The district court granted BATF's motion for summary judgment on the 

merits of Rice's constitutional claims. It concluded, however, that it lacked subject 

matter jurisdiction over his statutory claim for judicial review of BATF's inability to 

complete the investigation that is a prerequisite to its action granting a convict's section 

925(c) application. The court reasoned that judicial review was unavailable because 

BATF had not finally denied Rice's application, but simply lacked any present means to 

continue processing it. 

 While we will affirm the district court's decision to dismiss Rice's 

constitutional claims on their merits, we will reverse its order dismissing his section 

925(c) claim and remand the case to the district court so that it can exercise its statutory 

discretion to decide whether BATF's failure to grant Rice the relief he seeks would be a 

miscarriage of justice. If it decides this question in the negative, it should dismiss Rice's 

request for judicial review on its merits. If it decides in the affirmative, Rice should be 

given an opportunity to present evidence relevant to section 925(c)'s standards for 

restoration of firearm privileges and thereafter the court should decide the merits of 

Rice's case on the completed record. 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

5

II. Factual and Procedural Background

 Rice alleges these facts, all of which we assume are true at this stage of 

the case. In 1970, at age twenty, Rice pled guilty in a Pennsylvania state court to 

several related felonies involving stolen automobile parts. The state fined him and 

sentenced him to a term of probation. 

 The Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 921-30 (West & Supp. 1995), as amended, 

prohibits a person convicted of "a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term 

exceeding one year" from possessing firearms.118 U.S.C.A. § 922(g). See also United

States v. Essig, 10 F.3d 968 (3d Cir. 1993). 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 

1995). It authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to grant relief 

from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to 

the acquisition . . . or possession of firearms . . . if it is 

established to [the Secretary's] satisfaction that the 

circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's 

record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be 

likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that 

the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public 

interest. 

 

1

 Section 922(g)(1) provides in part: 

It shall be unlawful for any person--(1) who has been 

convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by 

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; 

* * * 

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or 

possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or 

ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which 

has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign 

commerce. 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

6

18 U.S.C.A. § 925(c) (West Supp. 1995). 

 Rice claims that he did not realize his felony convictions deprived him of 

his right to own and possess firearms. As a hunter and a gun collector, he continued to 

possess them. 

 The Secretary's decision to grant or deny relief pursuant to section 925(c) 

is subject to judicial review. In this respect section 925(c) provides that the district court 

is not limited to the administrative record, but can admit additional evidence to avoid "a 

miscarriage of justice."218 U.S.C.A. § 925(c). The Secretary of the Treasury has 

delegated his authority to grant relief to the Director of BATF. See 27 C.F.R. § 178.144. 

 To determine whether an applicant is entitled to relief, BATF "conducts a 

broad-based field investigation concentrating on [the] statutory criteria surrounding the 

applicant's disabling conviction and the applicant's record and reputation." Appendix 

("App.") at 30. It also "interviews the applicant, the listed character references, 

employers, members of the community where the applicant lives, the applicant's 

probation officer and other local law enforcement officers," as well as other law 

enforcement records. Id.

 

2

 Section 925(c) states: 

Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is 

denied by the Secretary may file a petition with the United 

States district court for the district in which he resides for a 

judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion 

admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result 

in a miscarriage of justice. 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

7

 Rice claims that he applied for restoration of his firearms privileges when 

he first became aware of the effect his state court guilty pleas had on his right to 

possess firearms. BATF's investigation revealed that Rice had purchased as many as 

fifty guns after his state conviction. BATF did not confiscate any of Rice's guns, but 

allowed him to turn them over to his father for safekeeping. Rice admitted these 

purchases and pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1). On the present record, it 

is not clear to us whether Rice voluntarily disclosed these violations to BATF when he 

filed his first application for relief or instead merely conceded them after BATF 

uncovered them in the course of its investigation. 

 On February 27, 1992 the Governor of Pennsylvania pardoned Rice's 

1970 convictions, and the state court subsequently expunged his state criminal record. 

In June 1992 Rice again applied to BATF for restoration of his firearms privileges. 

BATF began a second investigation. It was unable to complete this investigation 

because Congress passed an appropriation bill for fiscal 1992-1993 (effective October 

1992) that provided: "[N]one of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to 

investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 

U.S.C. 925(c)." Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 

Pub. L. No. 102-393, 105 Stat. 1729, 1732 (1992). Congress imposed a similar 

spending prohibition on BATF for fiscal years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995. See Pub. L. 

No. 103-123, 107 Stat. 1226, 1228 (1993); Pub. L. No. 103-329, 108 Stat. 2382, 2385 

(1994). It is currently considering extending the spending prohibition for fiscal 1995-96. 

See H.R. 2020, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995). After the October 1992 prohibition, 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

8

BATF informed Rice that it could not continue to process existing applications for relief 

from federal firearms disabilities and, therefore, that it was terminating further action on 

his application. 

 Rice then filed this action for judicial review of BATF's refusal to grant his 

June 1992 application. In his complaint he also claimed that BATF "is denying him his 

constitutional rights to bear arms under the Second Amendment and to due process 

and 'equal protection of the laws' under the Fifth Amendment." Rice v. United States

Dept. of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 850 F. Supp. 306, 308 (E.D. Pa. 1994). BATF 

moved to dismiss Rice's complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. BATF 

argued that Rice is not entitled to judicial review of its refusal to act on his section 

925(c) application because it has never finally denied the application; but, rather, was 

forced to stop processing it because Congress prohibited the use of appropriated funds 

for this purpose. BATF also contended that Rice's constitutional claims failed as a 

matter of law. Accepting BATF's contention that its inability to act on Rice's application 

did not constitute a denial under section 925(c), the district court dismissed his request 

for judicial review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and granted BATF's motion for 

summary judgment on the merits of Rice's constitutional claims. 

III. Discussion

 This Court's appellate jurisdiction over Rice's challenge to the district 

court's final decision is based upon 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 (West 1993). A district court's 

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is subject to plenary review. Anthuis v. Colt Indus.
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

9

Operating Corp., 971 F.2d 999, 1002 (3d Cir. 1992); Mellon Bank (East) PSFS v.

Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1220-21 (3d Cir. 1992). 

 BATF's argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Rice's 

claim is straightforward. It begins with the proposition that district courts are courts of 

limited jurisdiction and cannot disregard or evade the limits that Congress imposes on 

them. See Owens Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978). BATF 

then contends that section 925(c) is the exclusive avenue for relief from section 

922(g)(1)'s prohibition against a convict's ownership or possession of firearms; that 

judicial review is only available after it has denied an application for relief; that it has not 

denied Rice's application; and that it cannot take any final action until the prohibited 

investigation is completed. The district court accepted BATF's argument, with a caveat. 

It stated: 

It is doubtful whether the [B]ATF may avoid judicial review 

under any and all circumstances simply by failing to process 

an application. In this instance, however, there is no

evidence of bad faith or arbitrary or capricious conduct on 

the part of the agency. There has been no undue delay. 

Congress has eliminated the funding needed by the [B]ATF 

to process [Rice's] application. Consequently, the [B]ATF 

has suspended work on this and presumably other 

applications through no fault of its own. [B]ATF's failure to 

process [Rice's] application cannot be deemed a denial 

under § 925(c). This court has no jurisdiction, and [Rice] is 

not entitled to any relief from the court, as a result of 

Congress' elimination of [B]ATF appropriation for application 

review under § 925(c). 

Rice, 850 F. Supp. at 308 (internal citations omitted); see also Moyer v. Secretary of

Treasury, 830 F. Supp. 516, 518 (W.D. Mo. 1993) (suspension of funding for 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

10

investigations is not the functional equivalent of a denial). 

 We believe the district court erred in holding that Congress's elimination of 

appropriations for investigating and acting on section 925(c) applications deprived it of 

subject matter jurisdiction.3 We believe the district court's order is more properly

analyzed in terms of a failure to exhaust administrative remedies rather than a lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. 

 Nevertheless, we have an independent threshold obligation to satisfy 

ourselves that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. See Bender v.

Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534 (1986). Therefore, before reaching the 

exhaustion issue, we will consider whether Congress's repeated prohibitions against the 

use of funds to investigate section 925(c) applications evidences a legislative intent to 

repeal this section and deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over 

BATF's inaction. 

 We do not question Congress's exclusive power to appropriate money and 

establish the jurisdiction of inferior federal courts. See U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8 

(appropriation power); U.S. Const., Art. III, § 1 ("The judicial Power of the United States, 

shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may 

from time to time ordain and establish."); Lauf v. E.G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323, 330 

 

3

 We have given careful consideration to Rice's constitutional claims that he "has been 

denied his Second Amendment Right to bear arms and to due process and to 'equal 

protection under the laws' because the Government has failed and refused to process 

his application . . . within a reasonable time," but conclude that they lack merit. 

Appellant's Brief at 12. Thus, we will affirm the district court's grant of summary 

judgment with respect to them. See Rice, 850 F. Supp. at 308-09.
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

11

(1938) ("There can be no question of the power of Congress thus to define and limit the 

jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States.") (footnote omitted); Kline v. Burke

Const. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 234 (1922) (Congress "may give, withhold or 

restrict . . . jurisdiction at its discretion"); Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. 441, 449 (1850) ("the 

disposal of the judicial power . . . belongs to Congress"). It may also use appropriation 

acts to amend or repeal substantive legislation. See Robertson v. Seattle Audubon

Soc'y, 503 U.S. 429, 440 (1992); United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 555 (1940); 

Director, OWCP v. Alabama By-Products Corp., 560 F.2d 710, 719 (5th Cir. 1977). 

Furthermore, Congress can preclude judicial review of administrative action, subject to 

constitutional constraints. Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 

667, 672-73 (1986). Nevertheless, before courts will hold that Congress has used an 

appropriation act to repeal substantive legislation or preclude judicial review of 

administrative action, the intention to do so must be clearly stated. See Robertson, 503 

U.S. at 440 (Congress "may amend substantive law in an appropriations statute, as long 

as it does so clearly."); Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 373-74 (1974) (courts 

require "clear and convincing evidence of congressional intent . . . before a statute will 

be construed to restrict access to judicial review") (internal quote omitted). 

 The appropriation acts presently before us fail to show a clear intent to 

repeal section 925(c) or to preclude judicial review of BATF's refusal to grant relief from 

firearms disabilities. The relevant portion of the appropriation act for 1992-93 states 

only: 

[N]one of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

12

investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal 

firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). 

Pub. L. No. 102-393, 106 Stat. 1729, 1732 (1992). The 1993-94 act merely extended 

the previous year's prohibition in similar terms, as did the 1994-95 act. All three limit 

BATF's ability to spend appropriated funds to investigate section 925(c) applications, 

but none of them expressly preclude a court from reviewing BATF's refusal to process 

an application for relief. Absent more explicit language, we are unwilling to interpret 

these appropriation act provisions as repealing section 925(c), either in its entirety, or 

specifically with respect to its provision for judicial review of administrative decisions 

concerning a convict's application for restoration of his firearms privileges. This 

conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to explore any limits on Congress's broad 

legislative powers to control appropriations. See Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347 

(1979); Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978). 

 Having concluded that Congress has not repealed the statute or restricted 

judicial review to deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over Rice's 

challenge, we next consider whether BATF's inability to process Rice's application is a 

final denial. As we have already stated, we believe this issue is most appropriately 

analyzed in accord with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 

Exhaustion, though often referred to as a question of jurisdiction, does not have the 

same rigidity as true issues of subject matter jurisdiction. A district court cannot 

consider a case without subject matter jurisdiction, but failure to exhaust is not always 

fatal. See Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51 (1938) 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

13

(describing exhaustion as a "rule of judicial administration"); see also McCarthy v.

Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992). As recently described by the Supreme Court, "[t]he 

doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is one among related doctrines——

including abstention, finality, and ripeness——that govern the timing of federal court 

decisionmaking." McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 144. 

 The general rule concerning exhaustion is "'that no one is entitled to 

judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative 

remedy has been exhausted.'" McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 (1969) 

(quoting Myers, 303 U.S. at 501-51); see also McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 144-45 ("This 

Court long has acknowledged the general rule that parties exhaust prescribed 

administrative remedies before seeking relief from the federal courts.") (citing Myers, 

303 U.S. at 50-51 and n.9). "Exhaustion is required because it serves the twin 

purposes of protecting administrative agency authority and promoting judicial 

efficiency." McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 145. A significant inquiry in determining the 

applicability of the exhaustion doctrine is congressional intent and, "[w]here Congress 

specifically mandates, exhaustion is required." Id. at 144. 

 To decide an exhaustion issue "federal courts must balance the interest of 

the individual in retaining prompt access to a federal judicial forum against 

countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion." Id. at 146. "Application of this 

balancing principal is 'intensely practical' because attention is directed to both the 

nature of the claim presented and the characteristics of the particular administrative 

procedure provided." Id. (quotation omitted). Thus, a court may decline "to require 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

14

exhaustion in some circumstances even where administrative and judicial interests 

would counsel otherwise." Id.; see also id. at 144 ("where Congress has not clearly 

required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs") (citations omitted); Coit

Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561, 579 

(1989) ("Where a statutory requirement of exhaustion is not explicit, 'courts are guided 

by congressional intent in determining whether application of the doctrine would be 

consistent with the statutory scheme.'") (quoting Patsy v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 457 

U.S. 496, 502 n.4 (1982)). 

 In McCarthy the Supreme Court described "three broad sets of 

circumstances in which the interests of the individual weigh heavily against requiring 

administrative exhaustion." Id. First, a court is less likely to apply exhaustion when it 

may cause "undue prejudice to subsequent assertion of a court action." McCarthy, 503 

U.S. at 146-47. One way in which this "undue prejudice" may occur is by "an 

unreasonable or indefinite timeframe for administrative action." Id. at 147 (citations 

omitted). Second, a court may excuse exhaustion when there is "'some doubt as to 

whether the agency was empowered to grant effective relief.'" Id. (quoting Gibson v.

Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 575 n.14 (1973)). Third, exhaustion may not be required when 

the agency "is shown to be biased or has otherwise predetermined the issue before it." 

Id. at 148 (citing Gibson, 411 U.S. at 575 n.14). 

 In Coit Independence, the Supreme Court addressed the first situation. In that case, 

the Court reviewed the adequacy of FSLIC proceedings to determine claims against 

savings and loan associations under FSLIC receivership. The claim in question was 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

15

retained for "further review" and held without action for over 13 months. Coit

Independence, 489 U.S. at 586. The Court held that "[t]he lack of a reasonable time 

limit in the current administrative claims procedure render[ed] it inadequate" and 

"[a]dministrative remedies that are inadequate need not be exhausted." Id. at 587; see

also id. ("Because the Bank Board's regulations do not place a reasonable time limit on 

FSLIC's consideration of claims, Coit cannot be required to exhaust those procedures.") 

(citations omitted); Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 327 (1988) (parties "may bypass the 

administrative process where exhaustion would be futile or inadequate") (citations 

omitted); Glover v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry., 393 U.S. 324, 330 (1969) (applying one 

"of the most obvious exceptions to the exhaustion requirement——the situation where 

the effort to proceed formally with . . . administrative remedies would be wholly futile"). 

 In this case, the balancing test described in McCarthy, in conjunction with 

the principles of Coit Independence, favors judicial waiver of the exhaustion doctrine. 

Although the four month delay before passage of the appropriation act may have been 

reasonable, the indefinite delay imposed after its passage is unreasonable. BATF 

concedes that it cannot state a date on which it will consider Rice's application, nor can 

it even state whether it will ever consider his application. In fact, after Congress 

enacted the appropriation act BATF notified Rice that, even if Congress removed the 

restrictions currently imposed, he "would need to submit an updated application" to 

restore his federal firearms privileges. App. at 32. BATF also clearly stated that it had 

concluded its participation in this process and it is not preparing any further record that 

would help the court in resolving this dispute. 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

16

 Nevertheless, this case poses a special problem. The initial determination 

that Rice qualifies for relief from his firearm disability involves the exercise of BATF's 

discretion and relies on BATF's expertise——two factors that favor strict application of 

the exhaustion requirement. See McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 145 ("Exhaustion concerns 

apply with particular force when the action under review involves exercise of the 

agency's discretionary power or when the agency proceedings in question allow the 

agency to apply its special expertise.") (citations omitted); McKart, 395 U.S. at 194 ("it is 

normally desirable to let the agency develop the necessary factual background upon 

which decisions should be based"). Were it not for the express authority section 925(c) 

gives district courts to receive independent evidence when necessary to avoid a 

miscarriage of justice, we would be hesitant to excuse exhaustion where, as here, 

Congress has entrusted a decision to an agency under standards including one so 

broad as ensuring the public interest. 

 With that said, however, it seems clear to us that Congress did not intend 

to apply rigidly the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in this context 

because it gave the district courts discretion to create or supplement the administrative 

record when necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. What further part the agency 

should play in the ongoing court proceedings if the district court decides that it is 

necessary to receive independent evidence as to whether Rice has become fit for relief 

from his firearms disability is not presently before us. In that respect the record is not 

yet complete. We note, however, that the relevant provisions of the appropriation acts 

do not seem to preclude the agency from presenting its views on the propriety of 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

17

granting Rice's application on the record created in a judicial forum. 

 Against this backdrop, we can think of few administrative remedies that 

would be more inadequate than the one presented by BATF. Indeed, little to no benefit 

could be achieved by requiring further exhaustion. Therefore, under all these 

circumstances, we hold that Rice need not exhaust administrative remedies to invoke 

the judicial review provision of section 925(c). We thus will reverse the district court's 

order dismissing Rice's statutory claim for lack of jurisdiction. 

 On remand, the district court should determine in the exercise of its sound 

discretion whether the failure to admit Rice's evidence would result in a miscarriage of 

justice. Following that initial decision, the district court should then decide, on the basis 

of all the evidence before it, whether Rice has met his burden of showing he "will not be 

likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief 

would not be contrary to the public interest." Id.

 Before ending our analysis, we believe that it is appropriate to comment 

on some other issues that are likely to arise in the course of the proceedings on 

remand. Though Rice's ignorance of section 922(g)(1)'s prohibition cannot excuse his 

criminal violation of that section, it may be relevant to his fitness for relief under 

section 925(c). Similarly, Rice's argument that his federal conviction for violation of 

section 922(g)(1) is a nullity fails. See United States v. MacGregor, 617 F.2d 348 (3d 

Cir. 1980) (affirming a conviction for possession of a firearm where the predicate federal 

convictions were reversed on appeal after defendant's firearms conviction). 

Nevertheless, this fact also may be relevant to Rice's claim for relief under section 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

18

925(c). Finally, we are reminded that the Supreme Court has held that the right to 

possess a firearm after a disabling conviction is a privilege, not a right. Lewis v. United

States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980). Thus, Rice bears a heavy burden in his attempt to support 

his statutory claim. 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

19

IV. Summary

 We will summarily affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in 

favor of BATF on Rice's constitutional claims. With respect to Rice's statutory claim, 

however, we hold: (1) the appropriation acts prohibiting BATF from expending funds to 

process Rice's section 925(c) application for relief do not evidence an intent to repeal or 

limit the district court's jurisdiction to review BATF's prolonged inaction on Rice's 

section 925(c) application; hence, the district court should not have dismissed Rice's 

petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) BATF's continuing inability to 

process Rice's section 925(c) application constitutes an undue delay excusing Rice 

from exhausting his administrative remedies that allows him to seek judicial review. 

 Accordingly, we will remand this case to the district court to determine in 

the exercise of its sound discretion whether the facts Rice alleges indicate a potential 

for a miscarriage of justice. If so, it should then permit Rice to submit additional 

evidence of his fitness to have his firearms privileges restored and, thereafter, decide 

whether Rice's application satisfies section 925(c)'s standards for restoration of a 

convict's firearms privileges. 
This is a test header for example 2 

It will appear on every page 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

20

V. Conclusion

 The order of the district court dismissing this case is reversed, and the 

case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

 

 

 Circuit Judge