I always said that I would give President Trump credit if he ever did the right thing for the Second Amendment. After last week’s shooting in Florida, he refused to jump on board the gun control choo-choo train by saying he is an advocate of the Second Amendment and acknowledging that the defense of gun rights was one of the primary platforms he campaigned on. Is Trump really living up to his promise though? There are many in the gun community who are praising him for this, as if this statement means we will now see an end to all gun control across the country. While it is refreshing for a president to not bombard us with new calls for gun control or listen to him endlessly shame much of the population for understanding their rights, it is still a far cry from dismantling the existing gun control that should have never been enacted in the first place. Not pushing for more gun control, however, is better than what he did during his last tenure as president, so that is a bonus. The truth is that there isn’t any more laws that could have prevented that shooting. The shooter was twenty years old. It is against federal law for anyone under the age of twenty-one to purchase a handgun. Florida has a safe-storage law which prohibits gun owners from leaving firearms where they are easily accessible to minors. The shooter may have been a legal adult; however, he was a prohibited person as far as handguns are concerned. Let’s not forget that the owner of the weapon was a Sheriff’s deputy. Finally, thanks to Pam Bondi and President Trump, Florida has Red Flag Laws, which once again, have proven to be an abject failure. Trump’s statement is seen as a positive development, as he has refused to jump on the emotional bandwagon and push more laws that only infringement on the rights of innocent people. Is he living up to his promise? Or was his promise to defend the Second Amendment blown way out of proportion by people that had less than realistic expectations? There is a huge difference between understanding and defending the Second Amendment and not pushing more gun control, in my humble opinion.
Trump’s biggest promise on gun rights entailed the dismantling of what he called–Biden-era Infringements. As I pointed out in my article on his executive order, Biden took twenty-one actions against the Second Amendment. Most of which had nothing to do with limiting people’s ability to acquire a firearm. Were all of these the work of the Biden administration, and has Trump really been working to end them? There are many misperceptions circulating around the internet, mostly because everything that Trump does is being presented as the greatest chess move ever. The very first issue on the list of Biden’s actions is the so-called ghost gun rule. This is considered a Biden-era infringement because it is literally the first issue mentioned on the list. The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the government’s position in the Vanderstock case. This is the case explicitly dealing with the issue of incomplete firearm kits, which the government refers to as ghost guns, because they are not serialized or require a background check. The government argued that the ATF was within their delegated authority to issue a rule on unfinished frames because the Gun Control Act describes a firearm as anything capable of expelling a projectile through an explosive action–or–anything that can be readily converted to do so. For years, unfinished frames and receivers were perfectly legal, and didn’t require a background check because they were not considered by the ATF to be readily and easily convertible. Most unfinished frames require work to make them into usable firearms. It was when Trump, in his first term as president, enabled the ATF to ban bump stocks, that they began reinterpreting law on their own terms to push an agenda. If Trump and Bondi were serious about “Biden-era infringements,” wouldn’t they be reviewing this decision? Another issue, that in my opinion, helped solidify a false perception that Trump and Bondi are doing more than they really are, is the repealing of Biden’s zero tolerance program. This is a program started by the Biden administration where they deliberately looked for the smallest excuse to shut down a federally licensed firearms dealer. The Trump administration received a great deal of praise for repealing this program, with many commentators describing it as another promise kept. There is one problem with this. Biden himself ended the program before leaving office. Another issue that still has not gone away is the pistol brace rule. Pam Bondi’s DOJ has recently dropped charges in a case where a man was charged with possession of a short barrel rifle, when in fact it was a pistol with a stabilizing brace. There is a bigger issue here that goes right to the heart of the Second Amendment. The man is still facing charges for being in possession of a pistol without a license. Bondi’s action was most likely taken due to the pressure put on the DOJ by gun rights activists who feel that the administration has not been living up to its promises, and not because of any principled position the DOJ has on the issue. Finally, we are still dealing with the issue of unconstitutional red flag laws, and the increasing rates at which states are passing gun bans. Where is the 2A taskforce on these issues?
As mentioned earlier, there is a huge difference between defending the Second Amendment and simply not pushing more gun control. The unfortunate reality we are faced with today is that the Second Amendment–whether people realize it or not–is hanging on a thread and only exists as a fraction of what was intended. Trump may not be pushing more gun control–for now–but that doesn’t necessarily mean he is a Second Amendment advocate. Nearly all of the gun control laws currently in place have come into existence over the past 100 years and were completely absent at the time of our founding. Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, the Second Amendment was written to empower the citizenry while limiting the power the government could exercise over them. The right to bear arms exists because a group of people refused to be subjects and stood against the most powerful military force of the day so that they may have a free nation. Today, the Second Amendment is the most infringed upon right listed in the Constitution, even though it is second on the list. According to The Supreme Court’s Bruen v NYSRPA ruling, gun laws not found to be in line with our nation’s history and tradition of gun regulations, going back to the founding, are to be deemed unconstitutional. There were no licensing requirements, no background checks–no one needed permission–and there were no limits on what the citizen could own. Many courts today argue that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect weapons meant for military purposes. That is clearly false, as the very purpose of the amendment was to enable the population to arm itself not only to act as a deterrent against invasion, but to be enforcers of the common law as well. Citizens were required to keep military arms of their own and report to militia duty. This is the history of the Second Amendment. It isn’t a right the government decided to give us. It is a right the founders of our nation took for themselves in defiance of tyranny while attempting to form a country whereby a matter of constitutional law, the government has zero authority over our natural rights. Until this history is addressed, nothing will really change. Trump may say he supports, and intends to defend, the Second Amendment. But it is the Second Amendment that exists today, not the one given to us by our forefathers. Even The Supreme Court has not shown the intestinal fortitude to stand by its Bruen ruling and deal a blow to the gun bans being enacted across the country, as cases like Snopes v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island have yet to be granted cert. It stands to reason that if the current administration was principled in their 2A positions, and were serious about restoring gun rights, the court would be eager to drive on with these cases.
It is very unlikely we will see an end to existing gun control legislation like the National Firearms Act, or the Gun Control Act of 1968. We will not see an end to background checks, or unconstitutional licensing requirements. Government, once it has obtained power, rarely gives it up. This holds true even with Trump in the White House. While it is early in his second term as president, and anything can happen, it is also unlikely that Bondi’s so-called 2A task force will take any meaningful action against the states that are imposing unconstitutional gun bans on their citizens. The reason I say this is because there seems to be no concern at all among the states that are passing them. Why waste the effort if the task force is going to sweep in and declare everything you have done unconstitutional? Also, states like Illinois have enacted such egregious legislation, like registration–which is a violation of federal law–that it should be a no brainer for a 2A task force, but nothing has been said about it at all. Nothing. New York continues to defy Bruen, as the laws they passed in response are more limiting in scope than what existed beforehand. The court has in fact, denied hearing a case challenging these laws. When President Trump and Pam Bondi begin challenging the constitutionally of background checks, licensing requirements and semi-automatic rifle bans–let alone bans on machine guns–I will begin believing they have an inherent interest in defending and restoring the Second Amendment. When Trump addresses the infringements he enabled, like Red Flag Laws, I will see his actions as sincere. Until then, despite giving him credit for not pushing more gun control–yet–I will remain skeptical, as should all of us.
