The Trump Department of Justice has made a strategic decision that should alarm every Second Amendment advocate paying attention: it is defending a Biden-era gun rule against constitutional challenges from the very advocates who supported this administration's return to office. This move exposes a fundamental flaw in relying on executive branch goodwill to protect the Second Amendment. No matter who occupies the White House, bureaucratic inertia and institutional self-interest will always threaten gun rights. Only constitutional clarity—achieved through courts and law—can provide lasting protection.
The specific rule at issue matters less than the principle it represents. For years, pro-Second Amendment advocates celebrated Trump's judicial appointments and his administration's skepticism toward gun control. We were told the courts were finally being stacked with constitutionalists who would defend the Second Amendment. District Court judges appointed by Trump issued rulings favorable to gun rights. The Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, promised a rigorous historical-tradition standard that would make it nearly impossible to defend modern gun restrictions. That victory seemed transformative.
“A friendly DOJ can slow the growth of these restrictions, but it cannot unwind them on its own.”
But here is the uncomfortable truth: winning constitutional cases at the Supreme Court level does not automatically translate into the executive branch abandoning previous regulations. The DOJ, regardless of presidential leadership, has institutional interests in defending the government's authority. Career bureaucrats in the firearms division have spent years defending gun rules. Reversing course requires sustained pressure, clear directives from political leadership, and the will to fight through institutional resistance. The Biden administration appointed regulators who will outlast this presidency. They have written rules, issued guidance, and constructed regulatory structures that persist. A friendly DOJ can slow the growth of these restrictions, but it cannot unwind them on its own.
This is precisely why the Supreme Court's role in the Hemani case—and cases like it—is so critical. Hemani will determine whether the federal prohibition on gun ownership for marijuana users, codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), can survive Bruen's history-and-tradition test. This case represents the kind of constitutional showdown that actually changes law. A ruling in favor of gun owners would strike down the regulation itself, not merely decline to defend it. Courts cannot be lobbied. They cannot develop institutional loyalty to prior administrations. They are bound by the Constitution and precedent. When SCOTUS rules against a gun control measure, it stays ruled against. When the DOJ declines to defend a regulation, a future administration can simply reverse that decision.
Second Amendment advocates must learn from this moment. We cannot build our strategy around hoping for friendly administrations. Elections matter, but they are insufficient. We need constitutional victories that no bureaucrat can undo through memo or inaction. We need judges—and ultimately Supreme Court justices—who will apply Bruen rigorously and strike down the vast existing archive of federal gun restrictions. The Hemani case is one opportunity. The ongoing litigation challenging red flag laws, magazine restrictions, and ammunition regulations offers others. These battles in the courts, not press releases from the DOJ, will determine whether the Second Amendment remains a lived right or devolves into a symbolic concession that government tolerates on good days.
The Trump administration's defense of Biden-era gun rules is a warning, not a betrayal. It reminds us that the Second Amendment has no permanent friends in executive power—only permanent interests in constitutional law. Build on Bruen. Support Second Amendment litigation all the way through the courts. Demand that judges apply the Constitution as written, not as bureaucrats wish it to be interpreted. That is the only path to genuine, irreversible protection of the right to bear arms.