I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the National Rifle Association is no friend to the Second Amendment. If you weren’t aware, the organization supported the National Firearms Act (1934) and the Gun Control Act (1968), two pieces of federal legislation that were both wildly unconstitutional. If you’re looking for right-to-bear-arms groups that are ideologically sound and don’t have a record of aiding the federal government in grabbing our guns, try Gun Owners of American or Firearms Policy Coalition.
With that, we come to news from GOA, which reports that although President Trump’s ATF rescinded a particularly egregious (and criminal) Biden-era rule, his DOJ is still fighting for its preservation in court. Erich Pratt, the senior vice president at GOA, alerted the public to an email the group had received from a DOJ lawyer, who revealed the federal government had “no plans to abandon [Biden’s] previous arguments” in a case brought by GOA to kill the rule via the courts. That email can be seen below:
Why does it matter you ask if the rule has already been revoked?
While Trump has rescinded the rule, if a policy isn’t dead through the judiciary (or Congress), any future administration can simply resurrect it—as long as we’re ruled by unconstitutional agencies. In fact, on a side note, all the headway the Trump administration has made thus far in the bureaucracy should also be adjudicated on in the courts, or codified in Congress. (The revocation of the Obama EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding comes to mind.)
The GOA chalks up the disconnect to a “rogue” DOJ lawyer, which could certainly be the case, but it could also be something else. A politician’s currency is shallow gestures; it’s why we call it theater. They’ll make some big show about some bold action, but in reality, it’s all bread and circuses. I recall former Arizona governor Doug Ducey and a Republican legislature boasting about a new law that “protected” children from any “trans” interventions…but the law came with zero penalties for anyone who violated it, meaning injecting toddlers with fake hormones or lopping off healthy sexual organs was still entirely permissible. You weren’t going to get a fine, jail time, or even a knock on your door from the local cops. The AG “may” bring a suit if they so desired, but let’s be real, it’s never going to happen.
So back to the “zero tolerance” issue: Is it really a rogue lawyer? Or is it a sleigh of hand distraction?
Image from Grok.