DOJ Says Unconstitutional Gun Laws Can Still Be Enforced on Most Americans

Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News opened his latest video with a startling scenario: imagine the government admits a law is unconstitutional, but insists that ruling should only protect a handful of people. Not you. Not me. Not the millions of Americans living under the same law. According to Yanis, this is not a hypothetical – it is exactly what the Department of Justice is now arguing in federal court.

The Case in Question

The case at the center of this dispute is Elite Precision Customs v. ATF. As Yanis explained, this challenge, brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), targets the federal ban on buying a handgun outside your home state, often called the Interstate Handgun Purchase Ban. For decades, long guns have been allowed to be purchased across state lines, but handguns remain restricted. Yanis gave a personal example: he could drive 15 minutes into Virginia or 40 minutes into North Carolina and see a pistol unavailable in Tennessee, yet the law prohibits him from buying it there.

The Bruen Standard

Yanis stressed that the lawsuit is not simply about convenience. It is about constitutional law under the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, which requires modern gun restrictions to be justified by historical tradition. The handgun purchase ban, he said, fails that test – there is no comparable restriction from 1791 or 1868 when the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified.

DOJ’s Narrow Proposal

Where the controversy explodes is in the DOJ’s response. Yanis quoted directly from the government’s filing: if an injunction is granted, it should apply only to the named plaintiffs in the case. That’s two individual gun owners and one Texas retailer. Everyone else, millions of gun owners across the country, would still be subject to the law. “How about get rid of the entire unconstitutional infringement for everyone?” Yanis asked. “How about you do your freaking job?”

Selective Rights, Selective Justice

Yanis called this tactic “selective relief.” Instead of striking down a law for all similarly situated Americans, the DOJ is arguing that constitutional rights should be extended only to those who filed suit. He pointed out the absurd result: if ten million Americans are affected, the other 9,999,997 would have to file their own lawsuits to get the same protection. “Does that make sense?” he asked his viewers, answering himself: “Of course not.”

The Chilling Effect

According to Yanis, the DOJ’s position could create a chilling effect on future litigation. If every case only benefits a few named plaintiffs, advocacy groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America, or the NRA would have to file dozens of overlapping lawsuits to achieve nationwide relief. For ordinary citizens, it would mean justice delayed or denied altogether.

Reaction from FPC

Yanis cited FPC President Brandon Combs, who warned that the DOJ’s approach would “gut nearly every lawsuit against the federal government unless and until the Supreme Court steps in.” Combs added that this was not only a threat to Second Amendment supporters but to all Americans. Yanis agreed, emphasizing that selective enforcement of rights is the same as denying rights to most citizens.

A Shift from Past Practice

One reason Yanis finds the DOJ’s stance so alarming is because it departs from precedent. He reminded viewers of the pistol brace litigation, where courts granted broad protection to the members of plaintiff organizations. None of those groups had to provide detailed membership lists, and the injunctions applied widely. Now, he explained, DOJ is demanding individualized identification as a condition for constitutional rights – something unheard of in American history.

Historical Context Ignored

Yanis also argued that the DOJ’s logic fails under the very test set by Bruen. There is no historical basis for limiting constitutional protections only to a lawsuit’s named plaintiffs. “You can’t find one law around 1791 that required everyone to be individually named for the Second Amendment to apply,” he said. To him, the government’s argument reveals more about its desire to preserve power than any genuine respect for history.

A Dangerous Precedent

What makes Yanis’ report so fascinating is that it reveals a deeper shift in how the DOJ views constitutional rulings. Courts exist to strike down laws when they conflict with rights. If those rulings are narrowed only to a few plaintiffs, then constitutional rights become a personal privilege rather than a universal guarantee. That flips the entire system on its head. It is not hard to see why Yanis called the DOJ’s approach “misguided” and even dangerous.

Rights Without Borders

Another striking point Yanis made was geographical. Why should his Second Amendment rights stop at an “invisible dotted line” between Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina? If the Constitution applies everywhere in the United States, then no state border should erase a citizen’s right to buy a legal firearm. His blunt statement – “my rights do not stop at fake ass dotted lines on a map” – may sound coarse, but it captures a frustration shared by millions of gun owners.

What Comes Next

Looking ahead, Yanis said the court will decide whether to adopt the DOJ’s narrow injunction strategy. If the court agrees with the DOJ, FPC will likely appeal, potentially sending the case to the Supreme Court. At stake is more than one handgun purchase ban. The bigger question is whether constitutional rights apply universally, or only to those wealthy and determined enough to sue.

The Larger Implications

Yanis closed his report by warning that the DOJ’s position represents a broader attack on constitutional enforcement. First, he noted, DOJ lawyers insisted that Biden’s “zero tolerance” FFL policy was still being enforced despite claims it had ended. Now, the department is arguing that Americans can be forced to live under unconstitutional laws unless they personally sue. “What the hell is going on?” Yanis asked, leaving his viewers with a sense that the fight for rights is far from over.