Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon is firing back against critics of the DOJ’s ongoing defense of the National Firearms Act, which was most recently on display in the government’s response to a cert petition filed with the Supreme Court by a man convicted of illegally possessing a short-barreled rifle.
Jamond Rush has received support via an amicus brief from 2A groups like the Second Amendment foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and MN Gun Owners Caucus, who argue (among other things) that SBRs are commonly owned arms protected by the Second Amendment and that there is no historical support for special taxes on protected arms.
The DOJ contends, however that “requiring the registration and taxation of short-barreled rifles is ‘consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.'”
American legislatures have long imposed special taxes on arms that are especially susceptible to criminal misuse. For instance, many 19th-century legislatures taxed weapons such as dueling pistols, sword canes, Bowie knives, Arkansas toothpicks, and dirks. Similarly, many States have long regulated the size of firearms. For example, many States banned or taxed pocket pistols. Those regulations applied to “pistols of small size which are not borne as arms but which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed.” The NFA resembles those historical laws in both “how and why the regulation burden[s] a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense.” Like its historical precursors, the provision at issue here regulates the size of firearms but does not prohibit any class of firearms altogether.
Jared Yanis of Guns and Gadget put out a video this week highlighting the DOJ’s stance, which drew a rebuke from Dhillon on Monday.
Another bad take re @TheJusticeDept’s indisputable pro-Second Amendment credentials under @AGPamBondi’s leadership.
As our brief explains, there is no circuit split (division of authority) on whether the NFA’s taxation and registration requirements for short barreled rifles are… https://t.co/N24jKdScbC
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) October 14, 2025
Another bad take re @TheJusticeDept’s indisputable pro-Second Amendment credentials under @AGPamBondi’s leadership. As our brief explains, there is no circuit split (division of authority) on whether the NFA’s taxation and registration requirements for short barreled rifles are constitutional, which is what SCOTUS rules normally require to grant review. No circuit court has agreed that the NFA restrictions are unconstitutional, and Justice Alito (no friend of gun restrictions) has suggested that short barreled rifles don’t get any Second Amendment protection at all. DOJ is not afraid to weigh in boldly in the Supreme Court to move the law in a 2A direction, but we are playing to win. Not to score social media points by attacking our own allies. Friendly fire is always ugly and doesn’t advance the ball.
It’s true that there’s not currently a circuit court split over the NFA’s taxation and registration requirements are constitutional, but that doesn’t compel the DOJ to adopt the position that the courts have made the correct decision. There’s no circuit court split at the moment over the constitutionality of banning so-called assault weapons, yet Dhillon herself has argued before the Seventh Circuit that Illinois is violating the Second Amendment by prohibiting commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and “large capacity” magazines.
That is an example of the DOJ weighing in boldly in the appellate courts to move the law in a 2A direction, and it’s just one of many pro-2A moves the DOJ has made since Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term earlier this year. It’s also true, though, that the Justice Department is defending federal gun control statutes at the same time it’s challenging state-level restrictions.
I admire and respect both Dhillon and Yanis, but I think it’s unfair for the head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to accuse the Guns and Gadgets host of trying to “score social media points by attacking” an ally when Yanis was accurately describing the DOJ’s position in Rush v. United States.
I find myself largely in agreement with SAF’s Kostas Moros here.
There are valid criticisms. I’ve made several myself on here, including some of the stuff Guns & Gadgets is concerned with.
Yet it’s also undeniably true what Harmeet says; they are the most pro-2A DOJ in modern history.
Some of that is because the bar is low, to be sure.… https://t.co/3XsB6RyHJW
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) October 14, 2025
It’s true that this is the most pro-2A DOJ in history, or at least going back to President Grant’s administration. It’s equally true that the DOJ is currently defending the NFA’s taxation and registration schemes and claiming that they are part of a national tradition of gun ownership in the United States, and it shouldn’t come as a shock or surprise to anyone that many Second Amendment supporters are going to take issue with that position.
I greatly appreciate the work that the DOJ Civil Rights Division is doing to protect the right to keep and bear arms under Dhillon’s stewardship; taking on needless delays in processing concealed carry permits, state-level bans on so-called assault weapons, and undoing many of the ATF rules put in place during the Biden administration that target lawful gun owners and the firearms industry. That work can and should be acknowledged. But Second Amendment advocates shouldn’t just bite their tongue and stay silent when the DOJ fights to uphold federal gun control laws, whether they’re restrictions on hardware or who can exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
