There are a lot of gun cases working their way through the judicial system. Most of them stem from issues with various states, but that's not all of them. After all, with four years of the anti-gun Biden administration running rampant, stomping on the right to keep and bear arms, there are still plenty of federal cases as well.
President Donald Trump, though, ran as pro-gun. We had expectations, and there's another hint that the Pam Bondi-era DOJ has gotten the memo.
Sure, she's made it so some people can get their gun rights restored and there have been other pro-gun moves as well, but her chief of staff said something on X Monday morning that ups the game entirely.
Protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is a high priority for @AGPamBondi. To that end, the Department will be re-evaluating some of its recent litigation positions on Second Amendment issues, including silencers.
— Chad Mizelle (@ChadMizelle47) March 24, 2025
Traditionally, it seems that when administrations change, the arguments already in place in legal challenges are left untouched. At least, that's been my observation, though I can't claim to have done any in-depth study of the topic.
We already saw the Bondi DOJ ask for a 30-day delay on a case involving suppressors so it could re-evaluate its stance on the issue--the previous position had been that suppressors weren't arms and thus not covered by the Second Amendment--so this is really along the same lines.
It's just good to see that at least some other cases are going to get a second look to see if the government's position is as blatantly unconstitutional as what we've seen in the past.
And this is big.
If the DOJ takes the position that yes, these laws are actually infringements, it's going to be difficult for even the most anti-gun judge to make the case that the laws in question should be upheld. I'm not saying they won't try it, but as it moves up the judicial chain, that's going to be harder and harder to get away with.
What can happen is the complete destruction of the gun control apparatus at the federal level, possibly in such a way that it throttles state gun control efforts as well. That's the best-case scenario, admittedly.
The worst case, though, is that these cases are decided fairly narrowly but are still ultimately coming down on the pro-gun side of things.
However, there are still questions.
For example, it's clear that they're only taking a second look at some litigation positions on guns, not all of them. There's also no guarantee that they'll change anything. Taking a look is a good thing but it's far from enough on its own.
What we need is action. I sincerely hope that is coming in the near future; that this is a first step toward restoring our right to keep and bear arms.
Until then, seeing the heads of the anti-gunners explode is going to be glorious enough all on its own that I'll probably be kept busy laughing at them for days and days.
