A congressional probe has been launched after a federal judge threw out a lawsuit by D.C.’s attorney general targeting gun stores already cleared by law enforcement, sparking claims of political “lawfare.”
At a Glance
- The House Oversight Committee is investigating a dismissed lawsuit filed by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb against three Maryland gun stores
- The case alleged illegal straw purchases, but law enforcement had previously approved the transactions
- A federal judge dismissed the case “with prejudice,” citing lack of factual merit
- Lawmakers cite concerns about political motives and misuse of taxpayer funds
- The lawsuit relied on outside counsel from anti-gun advocacy groups, raising conflict-of-interest questions
Lawsuit Collapse Triggers Federal Probe
A high-profile lawsuit filed by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb accusing three Maryland gun retailers of facilitating illegal straw purchases has backfired. A federal judge dismissed the case with prejudice in May, concluding the complaint lacked credible evidence and could not be refiled.
Watch a report: Congressional inquiry launched over collapsed D.C. gun case
Now, the House Oversight Committee led by Rep. James Comer and Subcommittee Chair Clay Higgins is investigating the origins of the litigation, suggesting the suit may have been politically motivated and intended to undermine gun rights through strategic legal pressure.
Outside Counsel and “Lawfare” Accusations
Adding fuel to the fire, the D.C. Attorney General’s office retained outside legal support from Perkins Coie LLP and Everytown Law—two groups known for their gun control advocacy. This choice of counsel has triggered allegations that the case was a form of “lawfare”: using the justice system not to prosecute crime, but to target constitutionally protected businesses for political gain.
Committee leaders characterized the 42-page complaint as “filled with innuendo and unsubstantiated assertions” and designed more to damage reputations than to protect public safety. They are demanding all related communications between the AG’s office and advocacy groups to determine the extent of possible collusion.
Second Amendment and Fiscal Implications
Beyond constitutional concerns, lawmakers are also examining potential misuse of public funds in hiring high-profile firms for a case later found to be without legal merit. They argue that these legal maneuvers could deter lawful businesses and represent an abuse of government authority.
The committee is now seeking documents, internal emails, and funding records related to the lawsuit. Their findings could shape future legislation to limit politically motivated legal actions and safeguard due process for firearms-related commerce.
As the investigation deepens, the case is becoming a national flashpoint in the debate over how far officials can go in using the legal system to pursue ideological objectives—especially when constitutional rights are at stake.
