“For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated as a second-class right,” Attorney General Pam Bondi began in an April 8 Memorandum to All Employees. “No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”
It’s a refreshing sentiment considering Justice Department sentiment during the last administration, but it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about where the right to keep and bear arms comes from. As the Supreme Court noted about an earlier decision in the Heller case:
“The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…’”
It’s not quibbling over words, and it recalls a similar disconnect from the previous administration, when the Trump White House website declared “The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms,” and then ignored a petition to make a simple correction.
That points to the danger in not formally partnering with the gun owners Donald Trump would not have won without. And the Second Amendment Task Force AG Bondi introduces in the memorandum is an invitation to continued dysfunction:
“I will serve as the Chair of the Task Force and the Associate Attorney General will serve as the Vice Chair. The Task Force will be further composed of representatives from my personal staff, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Associate Attorney General, the Office of the Solicitor General. the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any other components or representatives that I may from time to time designate to assist in the Task Force’s labors.”
Forgetting anyone (scroll to pg. 73)? Because the primary loyalty of all of those people Bondi cites is to the chain of command, and when its priorities conflict with “shall not be infringed,” guess which will win.
I’ve been advocating replacing Joe Biden’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention with an Office of Second Amendment Protection for a while now, arguing:
“Gun rights leaders and legal scholars could be identified and nominated to analyze and prioritize bills, lawsuits, regulations, opportunities, and threats, to advise on judicial and other federal nominees, and to help educate the public. The Office would provide a way for the public to express their concerns and to offer ideas and suggestions, meaning gun owners would have a conduit.”
Such a body could nip misunderstandings and surprises in the bud and put a stop to much of the Second Amendment bipolarity we see being manifested in Justice, where one day they come out with an announcement gun owners cheer, and the next do something that leaves us slapping our foreheads and wondering what the hell is wrong with these people. Such uncertainty breeds mistrust and causes real divisions among gun owners, especially when we see actions being taken that fly in the face of Donald Trump’s campaign promise that “Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated on my very first week back in office, perhaps my first day.”
Aside from the fact that, instead of making that pledge come true, assessment reports, studies, and task forces just kick the can down the road indefinitely (see an instructive video from National Association of Gun Rights on this), such actions leave many wondering how serious and sincere the promises are.
Some recent cases in point:
“DOJ just asked the Supreme Court for a THIRD extension in its Biden-era lawsuit attacking Missouri’s Second Amendment Protection Act, which prevents local law enforcement from working with ATF,” Gun Owners of America alerted its members.
“The Department of Justice is currently pursuing criminal charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, for possession of a handgun equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace, in the case U.S. v. Taranto,” Zero Hege reports.
“The Morgan case is a case where a federal judge in Kansas found that machine gun possession charges are unconstitutional in violation of the Second Amendment as it applied to this individual Mr. Morgan,” Armed Scholar explains. “This Kansas Morgan decision is now being contested by the Trump administration in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In fact, the Trump DOJ just argued to the 10th Circuit that the decision down below should be reversed. They argue that machine guns are not in common use for lawful purposes in today’s society and that they are dangerous and unusual items and as dangerous and unusual items they can be restricted by the federal government, essentially however they want.” (As an aside, I hate to say I told you so. The “trap” is “common use.”)
Understanding there are some “see no evil” administration apologists who always have a “rationale” (that is, excuse) for letdowns, including those gushing over the appointment of Daniel Driscoll as acting head of ATF despite his having no apparent relevant background to make us believe he’ll be anything more than an order follower, my intent here is not to further the divide among gun owners. It’s to bridge the divide, and get our voices to the president’s ear.
“Gun Owners in Embattled States Beg for Bondi’s ‘2A Task Force’ Attention,” a recent offering by longtime Second Amendment writer Dave Workman reports. By bringing gun owner advocacy groups and activists into the process as partners and advisors, they wouldn’t have to beg. And they’d be able to help a no doubt overworked agency with lots of other fish to fry. Just keep it down to a manageable number, maybe half-a-dozen, so it doesn’t become a boondoggle like the NRA Board of Directors, and make sure they’re approachable, so individual gun owners could make sure their inputs are considered.
Here’s a question for AmmoLand readers:
Who in the Second Amendment community would you like to see representing your interests in such a venture, and why? Or do you think it’s best to let AG Bondi and the government careerists reporting to her handle things and let us know what they decide after the fact?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
