According to Ben Sanderson of Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Department of Justice is still defending one of the most controversial firearm policies from the Biden administration: the ATF’s so-called “Zero Tolerance” rule.
In a recent Minuteman Moment video, Sanderson explained that the DOJ’s lawyers continue to argue in favor of a program that automatically stripped Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) of their ability to operate, even for small, unintentional paperwork mistakes. What makes this situation more shocking, Sanderson noted, is that President Trump himself repealed this rule after calling it “evil.” Yet, the DOJ’s attorneys remain locked in, pushing the same positions crafted under Biden.
What Zero Tolerance Really Did
Sanderson broke down the impact of the Biden-era policy. Gun dealers, many of them family-owned businesses, were being forced out of business for tiny clerical errors – things as small as a misplaced checkmark or missing middle initial. These weren’t crimes of intent, he said, but innocent human mistakes. Under Zero Tolerance, ATF agents were instructed to revoke licenses automatically, rather than use discretion. Within just a couple of years, revocations of licenses rose sixfold nationwide. Hundreds of stores were shut down, with most owners losing their life savings in the process.
The Human Toll of Revocations
In his report, Sanderson pointed out that fighting these revocations in court was nearly impossible for most small businesses. Many had to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, only to be unsuccessful. “We’re talking about livelihoods destroyed over clerical errors,” Sanderson stressed. In his view, this was never about compliance or safety. Instead, it was about cutting off gun sales at the root by putting gun shops out of business.
GOA Steps In With Lawsuits
To push back, Gun Owners of America filed multiple lawsuits challenging the ATF’s actions. Sanderson highlighted two major cases: one on behalf of Morehouse Enterprises in North Dakota, and another defending Killian Tactical, a Florida gun shop. But, as Sanderson revealed, ATF used a clever trick to avoid judicial scrutiny. Each time GOA brought the cases forward, ATF quietly dropped the revocation proceedings against the stores. Then, they told the courts the cases were moot because the shop still had its license. Sanderson called this “playing whack-a-mole,” designed to prevent judges from ruling on the legality of the entire policy.
Trump Repeals the Policy – But DOJ Fights On
When President Trump returned to office, Sanderson explained, he wasted no time repealing Zero Tolerance. Trump issued what Sanderson described as the first truly pro-Second Amendment executive order in history, rolling back the Biden-era enforcement rules and recognizing that ATF had been used to “attack law-abiding gun owners.” The White House admitted the policy had been abused, targeting mom-and-pop shops with unfair enforcement. Yet here’s the twist: even after Trump scrapped it, DOJ attorneys still keep defending the policy in court.
DOJ’s Contradictions Exposed
Sanderson emphasized that the DOJ’s arguments now directly contradict the president, the White House, and even ATF’s new acting director, Dan Driscoll. For instance, DOJ lawyers have told courts that Zero Tolerance never punished unintentional mistakes, but Driscoll himself admitted the opposite. DOJ also argued that inspectors still had discretion under the rule, but ATF has since admitted publicly that revocation was automatic. These contradictions, Sanderson argued, show that DOJ lawyers are operating like a “rogue branch,” clinging to Biden-era talking points despite the administration’s change in course.
The Second Amendment Question
One of the DOJ’s most radical arguments, according to Sanderson, was that Zero Tolerance didn’t even implicate the Second Amendment. DOJ attorneys claimed there is no constitutional right for private businesses to sell firearms. Sanderson pointed out how dangerous that position is. If accepted, the government could effectively ban all gun commerce tomorrow, making the right to “keep and bear arms” meaningless in practice. Though Trump has rejected that argument, Sanderson said DOJ continues to defend it in federal court.
Why This Matters Going Forward
The concern, Sanderson explained, isn’t just about past enforcement. Without a strong legal precedent overturning Zero Tolerance, a future anti-gun administration could bring it back instantly with the stroke of a pen. “Without enforceable judgments in court, nothing prevents this nightmare from happening again,” he warned. That’s why GOA continues its lawsuits, even as DOJ attorneys insist the cases should be dismissed as moot.
Sanderson Calls It Open Rebellion
In his report, Sanderson went further, describing DOJ’s stance as “open rebellion” against the president. He said it makes no sense for DOJ lawyers to argue against the White House’s stated position, the ATF’s new leadership, and Trump’s executive orders. The result, in his view, is that the Justice Department is actively undermining the president’s agenda and the promises made to gun owners during the campaign.
Trump’s Own Words on Zero Tolerance
Sanderson also reminded viewers of Trump’s personal comments. In speeches, Trump called Biden’s Zero Tolerance an “evil” policy, saying it crushed small businesses for “a single minor error.” Trump promised to rip up these policies “the first day” he returned to office. And yet, despite that clear direction, the DOJ’s legal team appears determined to preserve the arguments that once justified those same policies.
Why the DOJ’s Position Is Fascinating
Here’s where it gets interesting. In most cases, the DOJ is supposed to represent the administration’s current policy, not cling to the past. Yet here, they seem to be operating on autopilot, defending the old regime’s rules even when their own bosses have disavowed them. To me, that suggests something deeper: a bureaucracy so entrenched that it resists political leadership, no matter who is in charge. It raises the question—who really runs the show, elected officials or career government lawyers?
Why Gun Dealers Are Nervous
From my perspective, Sanderson makes a compelling point. Even if you don’t own a gun shop, the bigger issue is about government accountability. If DOJ attorneys can continue enforcing arguments their own president has rejected, then the system is clearly broken. That means gun dealers, and ordinary gun owners, can’t trust that their rights are secure, even under an administration that claims to protect them. The risk is that one day, with no warning, a new administration could flip the switch back on, and thousands of livelihoods would be lost overnight.
The Bigger Picture for Gun Rights
The fight over Zero Tolerance is more than just a battle over paperwork errors. As Sanderson explained, it’s a fight over whether the Second Amendment has any real teeth. If the government can shut down every gun store in America through regulatory technicalities, then the right to own firearms becomes an empty promise. That’s why GOA is pushing forward, demanding court rulings that prevent this abuse from ever coming back.
A Legal Battle Worth Watching
In closing, Sanderson urged gun owners to stay engaged and pressure the White House for answers. Why is the DOJ in open conflict with the president on this critical issue? Why are Biden-era arguments still being defended in court when the administration has already admitted the policy was wrong? As Sanderson put it, “These actions are indefensible.” Whether you agree with him or not, this is a fight that cuts right to the heart of how much control the government should have over Americans’ constitutional rights.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
