Bondi Defends the DOJ as “the Most Pro-Second Amendment in History”

A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing turned tense as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–MN) pressed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on guns, mass shootings, and the Justice Department’s independence. Bondi repeatedly declined to engage on policy specifics tied to “pending litigation,” while vigorously branding the current Department of Justice as “the most pro-Second Amendment in American history.” The exchange – captured by DRM News – felt less like a sterile oversight hearing and more like a sharp clash over where public safety ends and constitutional rights begin.

Minnesota’s Trauma Sets the Tone

Klobuchar opened with grief and gratitude. She thanked federal and local authorities for apprehending a murder suspect in Minnesota and then recounted a brutal mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church: 21 wounded (including 18 children) and two young kids, Fletcher and Harper, killed during Mass. “Twelve-year-olds protecting eight-year-olds,” she emphasized, underscoring the raw stakes of the gun policy debate. As a framing device, it was powerful and fair: before getting to laws and litigation, she wanted everyone to sit with the human cost.

The Age-Limit Proposal – and a Wall of “Pending”

Pivoting from pathos to policy, Klobuchar tried to locate common ground: an age-limit increase to 21 for the purchase of so-called “assault weapons.” She pointed to Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas Act – which raised the purchase age after Parkland and which Bondi defended in state court when she was Florida’s AG – and noted data that 18–20-year-olds commit gun homicides at triple the rate of those 21 and older.

Bondi wouldn’t go there. “That’s pending litigation, and I can’t discuss it,” she said (repeating the phrase several times). Klobuchar’s frustration showed: “We can talk about it later, but that was my question and you don’t want to answer it.” Bondi’s stance didn’t budge.

In one sense, Bondi’s caution is standard – AGs avoid opining on issues active in court. But as policy oversight, it leaves the Senate (and the public) talking past the official with the most relevant influence.

Bondi’s 2A Frame: Law-Abiding Yes, Criminals No

Bondi tried to reset on firmer ground: “This is the most pro-Second Amendment DOJ in American history,” she said, adding that the goal is to “keep guns…in the hands of law-abiding American citizens while keeping them out of the hands of criminals and gangs.” She began citing ATF/FBI seizure figures (“Since January 20th…”) before Klobuchar cut her off to refocus on the age question. The message was clear: Bondi wanted the enforcement narrative, not a policy concession.

Enforcement is crucial – but it’s not a substitute for answering whether the executive would support or oppose a federal age-limit bill. Those are different questions, and both matter.

What “Pending Litigation” Really Buys You

Klobuchar made a clever pivot: “Your views on this are not pending litigation.” In other words, even if the specific Florida law is in court, what does Bondi think, personally and institutionally, about the principle of raising the purchase age federally? Bondi stayed in the bunker. The tactic shielded her from a headline but also left an impression: the administration will tout 2A bona fides, while refusing to preview how it would treat a targeted restraint (age limits) that some conservatives have accepted in the past.

DOJ Independence: Promises and Pressure

Klobuchar then moved to separation-of-powers and independence. She quoted Bondi’s confirmation vow that DOJ “must act independently” and asked whether she’d upheld it. “I absolutely have,” Bondi replied, adding she’d end “weaponization” and restore a one-tier system of justice.

Klobuchar pressed on a Truth Social post in which the president allegedly told “Pam” to bring charges – naming a member of the committee, New York’s AG, and former FBI Director James Comey. Was that a directive? Bondi ducked the premise and lauded the president’s “transparency,” declining to discuss conversations.

In Congress, refusing to answer is sometimes the only safe answer. But when the question is whether a president is directing charging decisions, the silence leaves a vacuum – and it will be filled by whichever narrative is loudest.

The EDVA Flashpoint – and a Shutdown Counterpunch

Klobuchar cited reporting that Bondi initially resisted efforts to fire Acting U.S. Attorney Eric Seabird (as she described him) in the Eastern District of Virginia, who supposedly found insufficient evidence to charge Comey, then changed her position. Why? “I am not going to discuss personnel decisions,” Bondi said.

Klobuchar followed with the reported firing of national-security chief Michael Beneri, and Bondi again refused to engage – before firing back politically: DOJ personnel are “working without a paycheck because your party voted to shut down the federal government.” It was a sharp turn from legal prudence to partisan punch.

The move reframed the hearing as partisan score-settling and suggested Bondi felt boxed in enough to go on offense. Strategically effective for rallying allies; less so for reassuring skeptics about apolitical justice.

Antitrust, Too: A Pattern of Non-Answers

Klobuchar asked whether Bondi’s chief of staff overruled antitrust officials in the HPE–Juniper merger settlement. Bondi praised Gail Slater, said the case is “pending,” and offered a primer on how merger settlements get court review. It was polished, lawyerly, and consistent with a morning of process over position. If there’s a pattern here, it’s that Bondi’s DOJ is comfortable talking about structure and norms, but not choices – especially where politics and prosecution intersect.

Subpoenas for Journalists and a Reversion to “Norms”

Klobuchar closed by asking whether DOJ has used new authority to subpoena journalists. Bondi said she restored the Department’s “long-standing norm” that AG Garland deviated from, contending some “self-identified journalists” were using their status to shield national-security crimes. She wouldn’t confirm any specific subpoenas.

On one hand, that message will resonate with those who think leak prosecutions have been too timid. On the other, it raises alarms for press-freedom advocates who worry about an elastic definition of “journalist” that can be narrowed whenever inconvenient.

Two Worldviews Talking Past Each Other

Strip away the theatrics and you’re left with two coherent but colliding worldviews. Klobuchar argues targeted gun restrictions (like raising the purchase age for semi-automatic rifles) can reduce catastrophic harm, citing the ages of shooters in Parkland, Buffalo, and Uvalde. Bondi insists the DOJ’s job is to defend the Second Amendment for the law-abiding while hammering gangs and criminals – full stop – and declines to pre-judge any policy embroiled in litigation.

Both frames matter. But hearings exist to test whether the enforcement-first model can coexist with narrow preventative rules. Bondi’s refusal to say, even in principle, left that question unanswered.

What We Still Don’t Know

We don’t know whether Bondi or the administration would support a federal age-limit bill akin to Florida’s post-Parkland law. We don’t know how the DOJ internally walls off political pressure from charging decisions when the president is publicly urging prosecutions by name. And we don’t know how aggressively DOJ is applying its restored policy on media subpoenas, or with what safeguards.

The Stakes – Legal and Political

Bondi’s claim that this is the “most pro-Second Amendment DOJ in history” sets a high bar – and a clear identity. If the Department wins high-profile 2A cases, curbs crime guns, and avoids politicized prosecutions, that identity will stick. If not, the missed answers today will come back as tomorrow’s talking points.

For Klobuchar, the path is narrower but potent: force the administration to own or disown calibrated restrictions like an age limit, particularly as courts keep reshaping the post-Bruen landscape. If she can’t pry an answer from the attorney general, she’ll try to build momentum without it.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.