{"id":109355,"date":"2025-04-16T22:28:07","date_gmt":"2025-04-17T03:28:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=109355"},"modified":"2025-04-16T23:38:12","modified_gmt":"2025-04-17T04:38:12","slug":"109355","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=109355","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Task Force\u2019s Exclusion of Gun Owner Advocates Means Continuing DOJ Disappointments<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

How about combining department-wide policy and litigation resources\u201d with counsel from the people most affected by infringements, the gun owners who made this new administration possible? (The United States Department of Justice\/Facebook<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cFor 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,\u201d Attorney General Pam Bondi began in an April 8\u00a0Memorandum to All Employees<\/a>. \u201cNo 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s 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\u00a0the\u00a0Heller<\/em>\u00a0case<\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it \u2018shall not be infringed.\u2019 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, \u2018[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\u2026\u2019\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s not quibbling over words, and it recalls a similar disconnect from the previous administration, when the Trump White House website declared \u201cThe Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms,\u201d and then\u00a0ignored a petition<\/a>\u00a0to make a simple correction.<\/p>\n

\n
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:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cI 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\u2019s labors.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Forgetting anyone (scroll to pg. 73<\/a>)? Because the primary loyalty of all of those people Bondi cites is to the chain of command, and when its priorities conflict with \u201cshall not be infringed,\u201d guess which will win.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been advocating replacing Joe Biden\u2019s Office of Gun Violence Prevention with an\u00a0Office of Second Amendment Protection<\/a>\u00a0for a while now, arguing:<\/p>\n

\u201cGun 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Such a body could nip misunderstandings and surprises in the bud and put a stop to much of the\u00a0Second Amendment bipolarity<\/a>\u00a0we 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\u00a0Donald Trump\u2019s campaign promise<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cEvery single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated on my very first week back in office, perhaps my first day.\u201d<\/p>\n

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\u00a0instructive video<\/a> from National Association of Gun Rights on this), such actions leave many wondering how serious and sincere the promises are.<\/p>\n

Some recent cases in point:<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cDOJ just asked the Supreme Court for a THIRD extension in its Biden-era lawsuit attacking Missouri\u2019s Second Amendment Protection Act, which prevents local law enforcement from working with ATF,\u201d\u00a0Gun Owners of America alerted its members<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Department of Justice is currently pursuing criminal charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, for possession of a\u00a0 handgun equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace, in the case\u00a0U.S. v. Taranto<\/em>,\u201d\u00a0Zero Hege reports<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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,\u201d\u00a0Armed Scholar explains<\/a><\/em>. \u201cThis 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\u2019s 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.\u201d (As an aside, I hate to say\u00a0I told you so<\/a>. The \u201ctrap\u201d is \u201ccommon use<\/a>.\u201d)<\/p>\n

Understanding there are some \u201csee no evil\u201d administration apologists who always have a \u201crationale\u201d (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\u2019ll be anything more than an order follower, my intent here is not to further the divide among gun owners. It\u2019s to bridge the divide, and get our voices to the president\u2019s ear.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cGun Owners in Embattled States Beg for Bondi\u2019s \u20182A Task Force\u2019 Attention,\u201d a recent offering by longtime Second Amendment writer\u00a0Dave Workman reports<\/a>. By bringing gun owner advocacy groups and activists into the process as partners and advisors, they wouldn\u2019t have to beg. And they\u2019d 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\u2019t become a boondoggle like the NRA Board of Directors, and make sure they\u2019re approachable, so individual gun owners could make sure their inputs are considered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Task Force\u2019s Exclusion of Gun Owner Advocates Means Continuing DOJ Disappointments How about combining department-wide policy and litigation resources\u201d with counsel from the people most affected by infringements, the gun owners who made this new administration possible? (The United States Department of Justice\/Facebook) \u201cFor too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bureaucraps"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109355","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=109355"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109355\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":109356,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109355\/revisions\/109356"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=109355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=109355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=109355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}