Trump Pulls Rank on DOJ in Major Guns Rights Fight

Person in suit seated at table with telephones — Photo: Shutterstock

The White House ordered it, the Justice Department built it, and now the Second Amendment is getting enforced like a civil right, not a privilege.

Story Highlights

Executive Order 14206 told the Attorney General to audit recent gun rules and deliver a rights-protection plan.
The Justice Department launched a process for eligible people to restore federal firearm rights.
Federal lawyers sued San Jose over a concealed-carry permit cost near $1,600, calling it unconstitutional.
The Civil Rights Division’s new Second Amendment Section tied its work to Executive Order 14206.

Trump’s Order Set the Course and DOJ Started Turning the Wheel

President Trump signed Executive Order 14206 to protect Second Amendment rights. It told the Attorney General to review actions from January 2021 to January 2025 and propose a plan to fix infringements. The text names the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and it targets rules, guidance, and enforcement patterns in that window. That is a sweeping directive. It put the burden on Washington, not gun owners, to prove rules line up with the Constitution.

The order matters because it has muscle. It does not muse about principles. It demands a plan, and it points to specific agencies and years. That signals intent: align federal posture with the Supreme Court’s test that looks to our country’s historical tradition, not policy balancing. When the boss says examine everything and come back with a plan, agencies move. That is how you convert campaign talk into government action.

Rights Restoration: From Cold Statute to Live Process

The Justice Department says it finalized a regulation and launched a process so eligible people who lost federal gun rights can apply to get them back. That shifts a long-dormant part of federal law into gear. The department framed it as a formal pathway, with rules and applications rather than ad hoc politics. It read like operations, not messaging. The move tracks the order’s demand to protect rights by fixing how Washington handles them in practice.

Critics on the gun-control side call the restoration framework a giveaway that strips safety checks. They warn opaque decisions could open loopholes and cause harm. Those concerns deserve sunlight, and Congress can press for clarity. Still, the on-record facts show a lawful process under law, not a backdoor amnesty. Fair, neutral rules that let people earn back rights after meeting clear standards match both the Constitution and common sense. Mercy is not chaos when rules are firm.

Fee Walls Are Still Walls: The San Jose Lawsuit

The Justice Department sued San Jose over a concealed-carry permit cost near $1,600. Federal lawyers say the city turned a right into a luxury. The Civil Rights Division linked the case to its new Second Amendment Section and to Executive Order 14206. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon drew a bright line: a fee several times the price of a firearm looks like an attempt to stop ordinary people from carrying at all.

The legal theory traces to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. That ruling warned that even “shall-issue” permits can fail if long waits or exorbitant fees deny the right to average citizens. If the government can price a right out of reach, it can erase it in practice. That is why this case matters far beyond one city. If Washington proves a fee wall is a rights wall, copycat costs will face the same fate in court.

The Pushback and the Stakes Ahead

Opponents point to a different front: a fight inside the Justice Department over how hard to defend old federal gun controls. Some career staff want to appeal rulings and keep laws in force during review. Others argue the department should stop defending laws when courts find them unconstitutional. Senators Alex Padilla and Peter Welch blasted the department for not pressing immediate relief in a case tied to the National Firearms Act.

Policy fights inside large agencies are normal. The measure that counts is how the department acts in public. Here, the record shows Washington setting a restoration process and suing a city over a heavy permit bill. Those choices align with a view many conservatives share: rights are not for the well-connected, and government must clear barriers it built. The courts will test the details, but the direction is plain. Rights protection moved from speech to structure.