A former U.S. Department of Justice legal professional, Elizabeth G. Oyer, has publicly stated that she was terminated last week from her role after refusing to reinstate Mel Gibson’s gun rights, a contentious issue that has drawn significant attention. Oyer emphasizes that her decision was based on legitimate legal and safety concerns rather than political motivations. The case raises important questions about the intersection of celebrity status and legal rights, particularly concerning firearm ownership.

Oyer revealed that about two weeks prior to her termination, she was assigned to a specialized group tasked with evaluating the restoration of gun rights for convicted individuals. However, when the group was asked to include Mel Gibson—who lost his gun rights following a 2011 domestic violence conviction—she firmly declined to support the inclusion of his name. This refusal has sparked discussions about the influence of celebrity and the legal ramifications of past convictions in restoring rights.

The New York Times was the first to report on Oyer’s unexpected termination. In her discussion with the media outlet, she disclosed that the office of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche had compiled a list of nine individuals who were deemed eligible for the restoration of their gun rights. The circumstances surrounding her firing raise questions about the transparency and integrity of the processes involved in such sensitive legal matters.

However, when Oyer submitted her draft memo recommending the reinstatement of certain individuals, she received pushback from two senior officials within the Justice Department. They sent her memo back, explicitly requesting the inclusion of Mel Gibson on the list. Oyer stood firm, asserting her inability to endorse Gibson’s reinstatement due to the serious nature of his past conviction, highlighting the ongoing debate about accountability and justice for high-profile individuals.

Following this, Oyer claims she received a phone call from someone within Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s office, pressuring her to reconsider her stance. When she maintained her position, the pressure intensified, with officials referencing Gibson’s close association with Trump and his role as a “special ambassador” to Hollywood. They suggested that advocating for Gibson could be seen as a politically advantageous move, reflecting the complex relationship between celebrity influence and legal decisions.

Oyer asserts that she remained resolute in her decision despite the mounting pressure. However, just hours after her firm stance, upon returning to her office, she found two security officers waiting for her with a termination letter from Todd Blanche. They escorted her out of the building without providing a clear explanation for her dismissal. An unnamed Justice Department official later informed the New York Times that the decision to terminate her was unrelated to the Gibson matter, raising further questions about the transparency of the firing process.