Opinion: H/T to Mark Smith at Four Boxes Diner for the great insights.
A significant shift in federal law enforcement priorities is taking shape, and it’s good news for gun owners.
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has made it clear: going forward, they will focus on truly dangerous criminals—not law-abiding citizens caught in the web of arbitrary gun laws. This move signals a return to a rational and constitutional approach to firearm regulations, reinforcing the principle that Americans can only be disarmed if they are found to be a violent danger to themselves or others after due process.
The Supreme Court’s Rahimi Ruling and Its Impact
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi was a major milestone in this shift. While the defendant in that case lost his appeal, the ruling reaffirmed a crucial point: firearm restrictions must be based on a person being demonstrably dangerous, not on technical or arbitrary infractions of the law. Rahimi, after all, was found to have engaged in multiple acts of violence, including domestic abuse and shootings.
The Court’s reasoning underscored that restrictions must be rooted in historical precedent—namely, that dangerous individuals can be temporarily disarmed, but constitutional rights cannot be stripped away based on nebulous definitions of felony offenses.
DOJ’s New Direction: Dangerousness Over Technicalities
The DOJ’s recent policy announcement builds on this foundation. Chad Mizelle, Chief of Staff for Attorney General Pam Bondi, stated that the department will return to its “core function of prosecuting dangerous criminals, not pursuing politically motivated witch hunts.” This is a significant departure from the previous administration’s use of federal gun laws to target technical violations, such as barrel lengths or parts classifications, which have no bearing on public safety.
This change in policy aligns with a long-standing argument made by constitutional scholars: federal gun laws have become riddled with malum prohibitum offenses—crimes that are illegal merely because lawmakers say so rather than because they are inherently wrong. Consider the National Firearms Act (NFA), which criminalizes firearm configurations based on arbitrary measurements rather than their actual use or potential for harm.
The DOJ’s decision to prioritize actual threats over bureaucratic entrapment is a step toward restoring sanity in gun law enforcement.
The End of ATF Overreach?
This policy shift could also mean a reduction in aggressive ATF enforcement against law-abiding gun owners. Under previous administrations, minor paperwork errors and non-violent regulatory violations were enough to trigger raids, prosecutions, and permanent loss of Second Amendment rights. If the DOJ sticks to its new focus, we may see fewer cases of legal gun owners being unfairly targeted for technical infractions, and instead, resources will be directed toward stopping violent criminals who actually pose a threat to society.
Institutional Reform Litigation: A Path Forward?
Another promising development is the DOJ’s stance on institutional reform litigation. Traditionally, the federal government has used lawsuits and consent decrees to impose policy changes on local law enforcement agencies—often in ways that undermined policing and public safety. However, if this strategy is redirected toward ensuring that states and cities comply with Bruen and other Second Amendment rulings, it would be a game-changer.
Imagine the DOJ cracking down on jurisdictions that slow-roll concealed carry permits or impose excessive fees that price out ordinary citizens. We’ve already seen promising signs that this type of reform is on the DOJ’s radar. If Attorney General Bondi’s DOJ truly champions gun rights, they could leverage the same legal tools used in the past to restrict police departments and redirect them toward ensuring that citizens’ constitutional rights are respected.
Why This Matters for Gun Owners
For those who cherish the Second Amendment, this shift is long overdue. The demonization of gun owners through arbitrary laws and regulatory overreach has gone unchecked for too long. If the DOJ stays the course, we could see a future where law enforcement targets real threats—violent criminals—while respecting the rights of peaceful, law-abiding citizens.
Of course, time will tell how deeply these changes take root. But for now, the DOJ’s new approach offers a glimpse of hope that the federal government is moving away from its war on responsible gun owners and back toward the actual pursuit of justice.
Stay tuned, stay hevily armed & stay dangerouse. The fight for the Second Amendment is far from over, but this is a battle worth winning.
SCOTUS Makes Major Moves on the 3 Most Important 2nd Amendment Cases of 2025 ~ VIDEO
Recent Machine Guns Unconstitutional Ruling The Good, Bad & Ugly ~ VIDEO
Imagine that.
It’s the same agents so while policy may have temporarily shifted don’t trust anything
The ATF have proven to be a danger to themselves and others , disarm that bunch of clowns please Pam . They need held accountable for all the murders they committed. Take their guns and throw them in jail . ATF is a dangerous rogue agency that should never be aloud to possess a gun of any kind .
Well they could start by getting that poor sailor out of the pen, and reinstating him in the Navy, and throwing all the tyrants who put him in prison, in his very cell.
But that’s if Bondi’s serious.
Practical use: https://freedomfortate.org/
Never before in the history of our nation have votes mattered more than they did on November 5, 2024.