Gun owners have plenty of reasons to be skeptical of politicians who suddenly discover the Second Amendment during election season. We’ve been through this before.
Campaign promises are easy. Following through is where things tend to get complicated.
That makes the second Trump administration worth looking at as a whole rather than judging it by whichever gun story happens to be dominating the news this week. There have been missteps, unresolved issues, and a few decisions that deserve criticism. But taken together, what the administration has done on the Second Amendment since returning to office represents a substantial shift in how the federal government approaches gun rights.
And arguably the biggest change isn’t coming from the White House itself.
It’s coming from the Department of Justice.
DOJ Is Actually Litigating for the Second Amendment
For decades, gun owners became accustomed to seeing the Justice Department on the opposite side of Second Amendment cases.
That’s what makes the creation of a dedicated Second Amendment Section within DOJ’s Civil Rights Division so significant.
The section isn’t merely advisory. DOJ says its mission includes investigating alleged patterns of Second Amendment violations by law enforcement, pursuing litigation, filing statements of interest, intervening in cases, and using amicus briefs to advance a broad interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.
The federal government isn’t simply declining to defend a particular gun-control law. In several cases, it is actively suing state and local governments over restrictions DOJ believes violate the Second Amendment.
That includes challenges involving Los Angeles County’s handling of concealed carry permits, gun permitting practices in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Washington, D.C.’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, Denver’s so-called “assault weapons” ban, Colorado’s magazine restrictions, California’s handgun roster and GLOCK restrictions, Virginia’s recently enacted semi-automatic rifle ban, and Montgomery County, Maryland’s expansive “sensitive place” restrictions.
The Denver rifle-ban lawsuit and Colorado magazine-ban lawsuit are particularly notable because DOJ isn’t dancing around the central issue. The government is arguing that commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines are constitutionally protected arms.
That’s the kind of position gun-rights organizations have been arguing in court for years.
It Started With Trump’s Second Amendment Executive Order
On February 7, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled Protecting Second Amendment Rights, directing the Attorney General to review federal regulations, guidance, policies, international agreements, and other government actions that potentially infringed on the right to keep and bear arms.
That review included Biden-era firearms regulations and enforcement policies.
What could easily have become another symbolic executive order instead produced tangible changes throughout DOJ and ATF.
Among them was the end of the Biden administration’s so-called “zero tolerance” policy toward Federal Firearms Licensees.
The Department of Veterans Affairs also stopped reporting veterans to NICS as prohibited persons solely because they required fiduciary assistance managing their benefits.
Then there was the creation of DOJ’s Second Amendment Section itself.
Those aren’t campaign promises. They’re changes in federal policy.
ATF Has Been Moving in a Very Different Direction
ATF hasn’t exactly enjoyed a warm relationship with America’s gun owners.
That makes the agency’s current regulatory direction particularly interesting.
In April, DOJ and ATF announced a package containing 34 final and proposed rulemaking actions following the administration’s review of federal firearms regulations.
Some of the proposals are fairly technical. Others could have meaningful consequences for gun owners and FFLs.
ATF has moved to clarify the definition of an “unlawful user of or addicted to” a controlled substance, revise rules governing certain non-over-the-counter firearm transactions, and reconsider other regulations affecting dealers and gun owners.
Instead of searching for increasingly creative ways to expand existing statutory language, the agency is now publicly describing its regulatory work in terms of reducing unnecessary burdens and aligning regulations with current law and court precedent.
That’s quite a change from where ATF was only a few years ago.
The National Firearms Act remains one of the more complicated pieces of the administration’s Second Amendment record.
Congress eliminated the $200 tax on suppressors and short-barreled rifles, removing one of the NFA’s most recognizable burdens. Registration, however, remained.
That created an obvious legal problem.
If the tax that historically justified the NFA’s registration scheme disappears, what exactly is the constitutional basis for continuing to require registration?
That question is now being fought in court.
The administration has also taken positions suggesting suppressors receive at least some Second Amendment protection, an important development for challenges to state laws that ban them outright.
More recently, the government’s handling of the consolidated Silencer Shop v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF litigation has raised even bigger questions about whether DOJ intends to continue defending portions of the NFA registration regime.
TTAG covered the latest development when DOJ allowed the stay to expire, putting Silencer Shop’s NFA injunction into effect.
As of August 2026, that story is still developing.
What happens next could be one of the most consequential Second Amendment developments of Trump’s second term.
The Government Is Showing Up in Other Gun Cases, Too
DOJ’s direct lawsuits aren’t the entire story.
The federal government has also increasingly appeared as an amicus in major Second Amendment litigation.
That includes challenges involving so-called “assault weapon” and magazine bans, ammunition background checks, handgun rosters, and restrictions on where lawful gun owners may carry firearms.
The administration filed briefs in Wolford v. Lopez, for example, challenging Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying firearms on private property open to the public.
It has also participated in litigation involving California’s ammunition background-check system and Massachusetts’ handgun roster.
That matters because the Solicitor General and Justice Department carry institutional weight that another amicus brief from a gun-rights organization simply doesn’t.
It also creates something that has historically been missing from Second Amendment litigation: an executive branch willing to tell courts that state and local governments have gone too far.
There Are Still Reasons to Be Critical
None of this means gun owners should stop paying attention.
The administration’s record isn’t spotless.
DOJ has continued defending some federal gun laws, including portions of the NFA and the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Some of that is expected; the Justice Department ordinarily defends federal statutes. But gun owners aren’t obligated to pretend those positions suddenly become good policy because they’re being defended by a Republican administration.
There have also been questionable litigation decisions.
The government’s position on the scope of relief available to members of organizations involved in Second Amendment lawsuits created legitimate concerns about associational standing.
DOJ’s handling of Benson was another unforced error, with U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office urging the D.C. Court of Appeals to rehear a favorable Second Amendment decision en banc.
Then there are the pardons that haven’t happened.
Gun-rights advocates have repeatedly raised the cases of individuals such as Patrick Adamiak and Matthew Hoover. Trump has demonstrated no reluctance to use his pardon and commutation authority elsewhere, making the lack of action in some firearms cases increasingly difficult for supporters to ignore.
There have also been comments from Trump and administration officials following high-profile shootings that haven’t exactly inspired confidence among gun owners.
Look at the Whole Scorecard
The mistake is judging the administration’s Second Amendment record based on one lawsuit, one comment, one ATF rule, or one disappointing decision.
Look at the entire scorecard.
The administration ordered a government-wide review of federal firearms policy. DOJ created a section of its Civil Rights Division specifically dedicated to enforcing the Second Amendment. The Justice Department is suing governments over rifle bans, magazine restrictions, handgun rosters, carry permit practices, and sensitive-place laws. The federal government is filing briefs supporting gun-rights challenges nationwide. ATF has reversed enforcement policies and begun unwinding or reconsidering regulations. Congress eliminated the NFA tax on suppressors and SBRs.
There are still significant fights ahead, particularly over the remaining NFA registration requirements and the administration’s willingness to challenge other federal gun laws.
There are also legitimate criticisms that shouldn’t be dismissed simply because the overall trajectory is favorable.
Gun owners have spent decades fighting against the institutional power of the federal government. For perhaps the first time in the modern Second Amendment era, at least part of that institutional machinery is being pointed in the opposite direction.
Canada’s government is forcing licensed and law-abiding firearm owners to surrender, export or permanently “deactivate” thousands of prohibited firearm models. Meanwhile, a criminal investigation involving former Member of Parliament (MP) Inky Mark shows Canadian authorities already possess extensive laws to pursue actual firearm trafficking and other illegal criminal conduct.
