Have you ever watched someone hand you a dozen roses with one hand while quietly holding a knife behind their back with the other?
That’s pretty much how a lot of gun owners felt last week when the Department of Justice dropped a surprisingly strong Second Amendment brief at the Supreme Court… only days after filing paperwork that read like it was written by Everytown’s legal team.
It was the ultimate mixed signal, and it left the entire gun-rights community asking one question: what on earth is going on inside the Trump DOJ?
A Tale of Two Briefs
On November 24, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced with obvious pride that the Department had filed an amicus brief in Wolford v. Lopez, a case challenging Hawaii’s near-total ban on carrying firearms in public.
“Hawaii’s law plainly violates the Second Amendment.”
— U.S. Department of Justice brief, November 2025
That single sentence felt like fresh air after four years of the Biden-Garland DOJ arguing that pretty much any restriction was fine as long as it could be called “reasonable.”
Gun owners started passing the brief around like it was the Declaration of Independence 2.0. For a moment, it looked like the Trump administration was finally delivering on campaign promises.
Then someone opened the filing from the week before.
The Brief Nobody Wanted to Talk About
Just days earlier, the exact same Department of Justice had submitted a brief defending the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF.
Remember the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” signed on July 4th? It zeroed out the $200 tax stamps for suppressors, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, and “any other weapons.” A huge win, right?
Except the registration mandate stayed in place. The argument from gun-rights litigators was simple: if the tax is now $0, how can the government jail you for not paying a nonexistent tax? The registration scheme should collapse.
The Bondi DOJ’s response? No way. Registration stays, and here’s why these items are super dangerous.
They even used the phrase “weapons of war” to describe short-barreled rifles, language straight out of the anti-gun playbook. The same phrase you hear from politicians who’ve never touched a firearm in their lives.
Seriously. The brief could have been copy-pasted from the Garland era with only the letterhead changed.
Why This Matters More Than Most People Realize
Federal gun registration has always been the third rail of Second Amendment advocacy. The NRA might negotiate on background checks or red-flag laws, but hard-core gun owners draw the line at registration.
Why? History. Every major gun confiscation of the 20th century started with registration lists. Ask anyone from California about their SKS problem in the 1990s, or New Yorkers about the SAFE Act “assault weapon” registration fiasco.
When the government knows exactly who owns what, door-to-door collection becomes administratively easy.
So when a Republican Attorney General chooses to defend registration, it isn’t just another legal position. It feels like betrayal.
They Didn’t Have to Do This
Here’s the part that really stings: the DOJ had options.
- U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro in D.C. recently announced she will not enforce the District’s magazine ban or its rifle/shotgun carry restrictions, calling them unconstitutional.
- When Texas sued over Obamacare after Congress zeroed the penalty, the Trump DOJ in 2018 joined Texas instead of defending the law.
- There’s precedent for simply declining to defend statutes the administration believes violate the Constitution.
Pam Bondi could have done the same thing with the NFA registration scheme. She chose not to.
That single choice turned a potential landmark victory into just another long slog through the courts.
The Broader Pattern Since January
This isn’t the first time the new DOJ has frustrated gun owners.
Throughout 2025, career attorneys have fought tooth-and-nail to moot cases against Biden-era regulations (pistol braces, frames/receivers, etc.) by claiming “we promise we won’t do it again.”
Never mind that those same policies could come roaring back the next time a Democrat takes office. The DOJ wants the lawsuits dismissed so there’s no binding precedent.
In other words, short-term political wins over long-term constitutional protection.
So Is the Hawaii Brief Genuine Progress?
Yes and no.
The Wolford brief is genuinely strong. It correctly applies Bruen, rejects “interest balancing,” and tells Hawaii its carry ban is dead on arrival. On its own merits, it’s something to celebrate.
But context matters. When the same Department is simultaneously defending federal registration and trying to moot every major Second Amendment case, the celebration feels… premature.
It’s like your spouse promising to stop cheating and then immediately asking if you’re cool with “just texting” an ex. Technically better, but you’re still sleeping with one eye open.
What Gun Owners Should Do Now
First, give credit where it’s due. The Hawaii brief is a win, and pressure works.
Second, don’t let up. The administration needs to hear loud and clear that defending registration is unacceptable.
Third, support the organizations still in the fight. Litigation is expensive, and groups willing to sue their own “side” when necessary deserve every dollar.
And finally, remember 2026 and 2028 are right around the corner. Politicians have short memories, voters need long ones.
The Second Amendment isn’t a partisan issue, it’s an American issue. The moment we treat it as negotiable, we’ve already lost.
So the next time someone tells you the Trump DOJ is the most pro-gun in history, hand them both briefs and ask which one they think represents the future.
Because right now, it really could go either way.
