I have taken a very critical stance against the Trump administration’s claims that they intend to defend the Second Amendment. This criticism is based on the fact that Donald Trump does not have a stellar record of defending gun rights. Not only did he ban bump stocks and push for red flag laws during his first administration, but in his own book he is on record supporting Bill Clinton’s assault weapon ban and longer waiting periods to purchase guns. In 2015, as he geared up for his first presidential run, he released a policy paper indicating that his position on this issue has changed. Links to this position paper are leading to an empty page; however, it can be read in its entirety here. To his credit, he acknowledges that the assault weapon ban was a total failure, while addressing the need to focus on mental health issues and leaving law abiding gun owners alone. I have addressed the issue of mental health several times, and how it is an argument inevitably aiding the push for more gun control. This is because, and it is another issue altogether, mental health is a farce. In 2018, Donald Trump supported red flag laws by saying he likes to take the guns first and go to court later. This one statement led to several states passing red flag laws of their own. Trump also banned bump stocks by allowing the ATF to rewrite, so to say, the existing definition of machine gun in order to make the ban legitimate. This is a precedent the Biden administration followed with their pistol brace rule. Donald Trump also authorized William Barr to create a surveillance system of sorts, which would monitor the internet for any indications of a potential mass shooting. This is alarming considering Trump’s most recent deal with AI giant, Palantir. Finally, Trump’s appointment of Pam Bondi, who helped implement red flag laws in Florida, was alarming to gun owners as it brought into focus the reality of his support for such draconian laws which violate the principles of due process. All in all, it is understandable why the administrations claim to being pro-gun would be scrutinized.
Have they lived up to their promise?
My first answer would be no, they haven’t. There have, however, been some positive developments. I always said I would give credit where credit is due, so here it goes. The Department of Justice has, for the first time ever, filed a brief in a gun ban case arguing in favor of gun rights. The case is Barett vs. Raoul, out of Illinois, dealing with the Protecting Illinois Communities Act, which banned semi-automatic rifles, standard capacity magazines, and instituted an unconstitutional gun registry, among other things. A federal appeals court has issued an injunction against the law stating it likely violates the Second Amendment. Of course it does. The DOJ is actually arguing that AR-15s are protected by the Second Amendment as arms commonly owned for self-defense, which means they cannot be banned. That’s good. They are also citing the BRUEN v. NYSRPA ruling by acknowledging that historically speaking, there is no precedent for banning any arms at all. That’s good. Isn’t it? It could be, but I am not so sure.
I would be remiss if I couldn’t offer some critical thought on this. While on the surface this is a great development. Many gun owners, however, have been frustrated not only with the slow pace the administration has been moving, but the Supreme Court’s refusal to address AR-15 bans as well. Is this a move in the right direction, or is it a move to placate the voters? Many people in the gun rights community have had unrealistically high expectation–in my opinion anyway–of this administration. There were many ideas floating around that machine guns would be legalized, and the NFA could be repealed, for example. In fact, in the case of United States of America v. Justin Bryce Brown, the judge ruled laws banning machine gun possession are unconstitutional. In response, the DOJ argued that this ruling was flawed because machine guns are dangerous and unusual, and based on historical precedent, they can be banned. What historical precedent? How does that align with the brief filed in the previously mentioned case? It doesn’t, if there is no historical precedent for banning arms of any kind. Realistically speaking, machine guns fall under the category of arms of any kind. Besides, I am pretty sure back in the days of the founding, people were allowed to own cannons. Those would certainly be considered dangerous and unusual by today’s standards.
If Bondi and the DOJ are going to cite Bruen standards in favor of eliminating AR-15 bans, then they have to do the same for all unconstitutional gun laws, which they haven’t done. There were no permits required to own firearms at the time of the founding. No background checks or waiting periods. Furthermore, we still have the issue of red flag laws, which neither Trump nor Bondi have addressed at all. Unfortunately, according the Rahimi decision, which in fact, cited historical surety and going armed laws, there is a precedent for disarming people who have been deemed a danger to society. What does this mean in terms of red flag laws and due process protections? That has yet to be seen. Until a case challenging the legality of red flag laws is brought before the court, it will be assumed that a person deemed to be a threat can be disarmed. The question of how they are deemed a threat is the problem. I don’t think anyone has an issue with a person who is known to be a public danger through legitimate, violent actions towards other people being disarmed. However, another question looms here. Why is a person like this roaming the streets to begin with? If a person is dangerous enough to be disarmed and stripped of his rights, shouldn’t they be locked up?
Is this brief by the DOJ a move in the right direction? Presumably. There are still other issues, beyond red flag laws that need to be addressed. The National Reciprocity act, for example, is rife with problems. If passed as it is, the bill would only protect the carrying of one firearm. It also allows states to implement more gun free zones and has harsh criminal penalties should you be caught without your papers. The HPA and Short Act are still in the air. While many people would claim the deregulation of suppressors as a huge victory for gun rights, critical inquiry dictates I ask why we would still need to complete a 4473 for something that isn’t technically a firearm. It seems to me we are kind of being pushed into accepting the idea that background checks should be filled out for items not currently requiring them, but I could certainly be wrong. I will say that this latest development with the DOJ does bring some much-needed optimism to the world of gun rights. I am also going to argue this point; the so-called Big Beautiful Bill is just another over bloated spending package putting us further in the hole. If this continues, we will inevitably face financial collapse, at which point there will be no freedom at all. We can push for the passage of these pro-gun provisions, but we should be demanding fiscal responsibility as well.
I always said I would give credit when it is earned. I think there is a high probability that this move by the DOJ was the result of many discontented voices in the gun rights movement demanding accountability and insisting that this administration live up to its promise. Which in all honesty, is great by any standard. It shows they can be moved, and they are listening. I would, however, urge for a continued sense of cautions skepticism. This could go in a lot of directions, and it could be years before anything is achieved at all. We should also be demanding the standard they are allegedly citing in this case be applied to gun rights as a whole, and they work towards eliminating permits and background checks. Some people are ok with background checks; however, it is important to remember that they didn’t exist until the 1990s. Nobody wants a criminal getting their hands on a firearm, but background checks have not done anything to stop that. In fact, they do more to infringe on the rights of the law-abiding than anything through false denials and unconstitutional delays due to nothing more than a new worker not knowing what they are doing.
Anyway, this is definitely something worth watching. Whether it takes us where we want to go? We’ll see, I suppose.
