President Trump is expecting Pam Bondi’s much-anticipated report on Biden-era Second Amendment infringements, and what actions he should take to rectify them. There is plenty of unconstitutional gun control happening all across the nation. Theoretically speaking, this report should entail everything from so-called assault weapon and magazine bans to red-flag laws and licensing schemes that defy the Supreme Court’s Bruen v. NYSRPA decision. There are some interesting points to ponder concerning Trump’s executive order, and what Bondi herself may or may not find unconstitutional. First, what infringements did Biden impose on the Second Amendment that Trump’s first administration didn’t start? Second, why stop at Biden-era infringements? Did the President limit what Bondi can identify as being unconstitutional? What about the states that passed unconstitutional red flag laws following the advice and consent of William Barr during the first Trump administration? President Trump gave William Barr the green light to provide funding for these laws, which were carried over to, not started by the Biden administration. Finally, did Bondi even examine infringements that are taking place on the state level, or will they be ignored under the guise of being a state’s rights issue?
Biden issued twenty-one executive orders against the Second Amendment, most of which involved funding to research so-called gun violence prevention programs. This is unconstitutional, as using tax-payer money to fund gun control is illegal. The most troubling of his administration’s actions was the zero-tolerance program, where the ATF was finding any justifiable reason to shut down an FFL. Biden himself ended this program (allegedly) before leaving office. Many people will point out the ATF’s attempt to ban forced reset triggers and their pistol brace rule — which was an attempt to interpret federal law on their terms. The ATF redefined the word machine gun in existing gun control statutes to make a bump stock an automatic weapon as well. While the Supreme Court overturned this rule, it was the first Trump administration that banned bump stocks. The ATF’s actions against forced reset triggers and pistol braces were just following precedent. There was also the “who is considered to be in the business” rule that attempted to ban the private sale of personal firearms. This came from the Bi-Partisan Safer Communities Act, which sets out a clear definition of its intentions — meaning that the ATF can theoretically make rules following the guidance set forth by the law. The rule states that if one is selling firearms for the predominant reason of earning a profit, they are to be considered a dealer and would need to conduct a background check for the buyer. The ATF cannot, however, reinterpret the intentions of the law and make their own rules based on what they think the law says. The Supreme Court rightly ended the doctrine known as Chevron Deference in 2024.
Several states across the nation have enacted bans on semi-automatic rifles, and there are more following suit. Colorado and New Mexico, for example, are the latest to introduce such bans. New Mexico is following Illinois’ lead by adding an illegal gun registry in the mix as well. Some people may argue that this is a state’s rights issue, however, it is not. The Federal Constitution is the law of the land and individual states can add to, but not take away from it. The Supremacy Clause applies here as it is the federal constitution that is supposed to protect the right to keep and bear arms. People often mistake the Supremacy Clause to mean that all federal law trumps state law. This is incorrect, federal laws in pursuance of the Constitution trump state law. The Supreme Court ruled in the 2007 Heller decision that firearms in common use cannot be banned. Semi-automatic firearms, whether they be pistols or rifles, are the standard in modern firearm technology. If they are owned for lawful purposes, laws cannot be passed barring ownership. Yet, here we are. Not only are individual states defying this Supreme Court ruling, but the Supreme Court itself has so far, shown very little interest in defending its own opinions. Snopes V. Brown, an assault weapon ban case from Maryland, has yet to be granted cert by the court as they continually reschedule it for conference. This undoubtedly sends a signal to gun-grabbing governors who wish to impose their tyrannical rule on their citizenry. Will Pam Bondi cite any of these state bans as infringements?
Finally, there is the ever-ominous encroachment of the red flag law issue. Trump, as stated several times over by this writer, gave his previous AG the green light to provide funding to states to pass such laws. While there were two in the nation at the time, several more jumped on board after learning they had the president’s support to do so. Red flag laws, otherwise known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders, seem like a good idea on the surface, however, they are extremely dangerous to the preservation of liberty. In most cases, anyone who views an individual’s behavior as being suspect, or unusual in any way, can file a petition requesting a court remove that individual’s firearms under the guise that they may pose a danger to themselves or others. The person in question has no idea this petition has been filed until law enforcement shows up to confiscate their legally owned property. It is then up to the individual in question to prove their innocence to the court — so to say — as opposed to the government having to prove guilt. This violates the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty. So does the background check to buy a gun in the first place, if you want to get technical about it — but that is another point altogether. The state of Michigan is currently exercising its red flag laws in a very disturbing manner. They are justifying gun confiscations based on children’s behavior at school. Perhaps a child threatened another and made some vague reference to their parent’s owning firearms. This is enough, under Michigan’s law, to confiscate the parent’s guns under the guise that the child may pose a danger to others. Thousands of guns have been confiscated across the nation under red flag laws. In some cases, it may seem justifiable. The problem, however, is that mental health laws (and this will be discussed in greater detail later) already exist where a person can be held involuntarily, and put through a competency hearing if necessary. If found incompetent, they can legally lose their gun rights. If a person is considered so dangerous that they shouldn’t have a firearm, should they be roaming free in open society? President Trump received a lot of praise for ending Biden’s office of gun violence prevention. Did he shut down the Justice Department’s Red Flag Law Resource Center?
Is it possible that Bondi’s report will identify these issues as unconstitutional infringements, and put an end to them? Perhaps, however, that is unlikely. She played a big role in the implementation of Florida’s red flag law, and she has expressed support for other gun control initiatives in the past. Many politicians talk a big game about supporting the Second Amendment, while also advocating for gun control laws they try to sell to the public as being common sense. The problem with gun control is that no law will affect the criminal alone, as criminals don’t follow laws. Take red flag laws as an example. Say they confiscate an individual’s gun because he made a threat to someone else. Without arresting the individual, what is to stop him from carrying out the threat? Nothing. On the other hand, passing a gun control law that only affects the law-abiding leaves them vulnerable to violent people who will not follow the law. That should be considered a criminal act, in this writer’s opinion. The truth is that all gun control is unconstitutional precisely for that reason. No law can be passed that will prevent violent people from being violent. Gun control only affects those who are willing to comply with the law. Governor Pritzker, from Illinois for example, is committing an unconstitutional action by forcing innocent people, exercising their legal constitutional right to own a firearm to register them, knowing full well criminals will ignore the law. Again, in this writer’s opinion, he should be held criminally liable for any individual affected by his law who suffers an injury due to not being able to defend themselves.
The big questions looming in anticipation of Bondi’s report are — what will she consider to be unconstitutional, and why focus just on Biden-era infringements? Any law that interferes with a law-abiding individual’s ability to acquire a firearm should be seen as unconstitutional. Including the background check. There is no historical precedent, after all, where people had to ask permission from the government to own a firearm.
