DOJ Files Brief to End State-Level Gun Bans

In a move that surprised nearly everyone, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Trump administration filed a legal brief on July 19, 2025, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down sweeping state-level gun control laws. According to gun rights reporter Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets, this brief takes aim at multiple firearm restrictions in states like Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Yanis called the move “one of the most important pro-Second Amendment actions” the DOJ has taken in years.

This bold step puts the DOJ squarely on the side of everyday gun owners. It’s not just about a single case – it’s a full-frontal attack on what many consider unconstitutional laws that have piled up in recent decades.

The Bruen Standard at the Center of the Argument

Yanis explained that the DOJ is using the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision from 2022 as the foundation for its case. That ruling, often called “Breun” in shorthand, said any modern gun law must align with the historical traditions of firearm regulation in America. If it can’t be tied to what the Founding Fathers would have accepted in 1791, it’s out.

According to Jared Yanis, the DOJ argues that bans on magazine sizes, carry restrictions, age limits, and licensing schemes do not meet this historical test. Most of those laws were invented in the last 30 years – long after the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified. In other words, they’re modern ideas grafted onto a constitutional right, and that doesn’t cut it anymore.

A Supreme Court Showdown Is Brewing

The legal brief specifically targets Hawaii’s law that bars people from carrying firearms on private property unless there’s a visible sign allowing it. That law, Yanis explains, flips the script by treating lawful carry as a crime unless a property owner explicitly says otherwise. The DOJ says this creates a “near-complete ban on public carry,” since most businesses don’t post any signs at all.

In his video, Yanis noted that this strategy isn’t limited to Hawaii. Similar laws have popped up in multiple blue states since the Bruen ruling. The DOJ wants the Supreme Court to finally settle the issue and stop what it sees as deliberate attempts to get around the Constitution.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer Lays It Out

The DOJ brief, written by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, states plainly that the United States “has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms.” Sauer reminded the Court that since the founding of the republic, individuals could carry firearms on private property unless the property owner objected. That was the historical norm.

Sauer’s words echo the logic of the Bruen ruling and reinforce the idea that modern regulations must be grounded in the traditions and understanding of the Constitution’s original era. This level of clarity from the DOJ has given gun rights supporters reason to hope.

Carrying a Gun Shouldn’t Be a Crime

Yanis broke down the real-world implications of Hawaii’s law. Under the current rule, a person carrying a handgun for self-defense could unknowingly commit a misdemeanor simply by walking into a grocery store, restaurant, gas station, or even a parking lot. “That’s insane,” Yanis said, pointing out how easily law-abiding citizens can be criminalized.

The DOJ agrees. In its brief, it highlighted how these laws invert the presumption of freedom – turning the burden on the individual rather than the state. That’s exactly the kind of overreach the Constitution is supposed to prevent.

A Pattern of Resistance in Anti-Gun States

California, New Jersey, and New York have all adopted similar laws in response to Bruen, many of which were explicitly designed to sidestep the ruling. According to Yanis, this legal resistance is no accident. “These states are playing games with your rights,” he said, arguing that lawmakers are testing the limits of what they can get away with.

But this time, the DOJ isn’t looking the other way. By taking up this fight, they’re setting the stage for a possible national rollback of many state-level gun restrictions that have existed for years.

DOJ Also Avoided Appeal in Age Limit Ruling

In another surprising development, Yanis reported that the DOJ recently chose not to appeal a lower court ruling that struck down handgun purchase bans for 18-to-20-year-olds. That decision cited the Bruen standard and found the age-based ban unconstitutional. The DOJ’s refusal to fight it signals a shift in direction – one that favors individual rights over government-imposed age limits.

That’s not to say every recent case has gone the same way. As Yanis reminded viewers, in Bondi v. Vanderstok, courts upheld the ATF’s ability to regulate ghost gun kits. So the legal environment remains complicated, but this latest DOJ brief is a major pivot.

This May Be Unprecedented

Let’s not sugarcoat this – it’s rare for the DOJ to support rolling back gun control. Usually, the agency leans toward enforcement and regulation. But this time, as Jared Yanis emphasized, “they’re doing the right thing.” And that’s what makes this so important. It shows what happens when the Department is led by people who respect the actual text and history of the Constitution.

Yanis also stressed the importance of elections. This legal stance wasn’t accidental – it’s a direct result of who’s in power. “When you staff the DOJ with people who believe in the Constitution, things move in the right direction,” he said.

The Fight Isn’t Over

Though the DOJ’s actions are promising, the battle is far from over. States like California and New Jersey have already vowed to defend their laws in court. But this time, they’re not on the offensive – they’re playing defense. And that’s a big shift. As Yanis put it, “This is how we restore freedom. One case at a time.”

It’s a reminder that progress on gun rights doesn’t come all at once. It comes through court rulings, legal briefs, and tireless advocacy. And that’s why efforts like this DOJ filing matter so much – they shift the momentum.

Supreme Court Could Reset the Map

If the Supreme Court accepts the DOJ’s request and hears the case, it could issue a ruling with massive consequences. A win would likely strike down several major gun laws and force states to rethink their entire approach to firearms regulation. Yanis even called it the potential for “another Bruen-level victory.”

Such a decision could create a national standard, making it clear that constitutional rights can’t be brushed aside by state-level lawmakers. That’s the kind of ruling that would reshape how gun laws are written and enforced for decades.

Panic on the Anti-Gun Side

According to Jared Yanis, gun control advocates are panicking. He said he’s seen their reactions online, and “they know what’s at stake.” Groups that pushed for these laws are now facing the possibility of a total legal reset. “They’ve played offense for years. Now, they’re scrambling to play defense,” Yanis observed.

And that, he said, is a good sign for the Second Amendment community. It means the tide may be turning. “Stay sharp, stay informed, and most of all – stay in this fight,” Yanis urged his audience.

What This Means for Gun Owners

For the average gun owner, this DOJ move could mean everything. If successful, it would restore rights in states that have chipped away at them for years. No more bans. No more hidden traps in carry laws. And no more treating responsible citizens like criminals.

But it also underscores the need to remain vigilant. As Yanis said, “The duty of a true patriot is to protect his country from its government.” That spirit,  to fight, case by case, law by law, is how freedom survives.