A storm is brewing in the gun rights community, and according to Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News, it’s a story that should have every firearms owner paying attention. In a recent video, Jared revealed that while the Trump administration publicly claims to have repealed the Biden-era “zero tolerance” policy targeting gun dealers, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is still defending that same policy in federal court. The contradiction has left many wondering: is the DOJ quietly undermining gun owners while telling the public something different?
Jared Yanis Sounds the Alarm
Jared opened his report with a blunt warning: “This is going to anger you.” He explained that the DOJ’s actions in court don’t line up with the administration’s public statements. While Trump and even ATF leadership have admitted that the zero tolerance policy was an abuse of power, DOJ lawyers are still fighting to preserve it. For Jared, this is not just a political contradiction – it’s government gaslighting.
What Zero Tolerance Really Means
The “zero tolerance” policy, as Jared detailed, allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to revoke a dealer’s federal firearms license over even a single paperwork error. That means one misplaced number or unchecked box could put an entire gun shop out of business. For decades, ATF inspectors worked with small shops to correct honest mistakes. Under Biden’s rule, those errors became grounds for extinction. According to Jared, thousands of small mom-and-pop gun shops were forced to close, with livelihoods destroyed over technicalities.
DOJ’s Public Repeal – And Private Defense
On April 7, 2025, the DOJ publicly announced that it was repealing the zero tolerance rule. Many in the gun rights community, including Jared, initially welcomed the news. But behind the scenes, something different was happening. In ongoing lawsuits brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation, DOJ lawyers have continued to argue that the policy was lawful, that it didn’t target innocent mistakes, and that inspectors had discretion. Jared pointed out the obvious contradiction: the administration admits it was abusive, while DOJ insists in court that it was harmless.
The Stakes in Court
Jared explained that two major cases are at the heart of this fight: Morehouse Enterprises v. ATF and Kilton Tactical v. ATF. Both challenge the legality of the zero tolerance rule. Morehouse, a small gun shop in North Dakota, is backed by GOA. These lawsuits argue that ATF cannot simply rewrite federal law by redefining “willful” violations as minor mistakes. Yet DOJ’s courtroom strategy is to defend the rule and to dismiss these cases as moot because the policy was “verbally repealed.” In other words, DOJ is trying to avoid a binding court decision that could permanently block the rule from ever coming back.
Jared’s “Record Scratch” Moment
Perhaps the most shocking part of Jared’s report was his revelation of DOJ’s courtroom arguments. He said the DOJ is now claiming that “the Second Amendment does not protect the right of small private businesses and federal firearms licensees to sell firearms.” Jared described this as a “record scratch moment” that should alarm every gun owner. If the courts accept this reasoning, the government could sidestep the right to keep and bear arms by simply choking off the supply chain.
ATF Inspectors Had No Choice
Jared emphasized testimony from ATF inspectors themselves, who said they had “no discretion” under the zero tolerance regime. If a violation appeared on ATF’s list, revocation was automatic – even if the mistake was clearly unintentional. Congress had explicitly required that license revocations only occur for “willful” violations. The Biden-era ATF simply redefined the word to suit its agenda. Jared argued that this was not enforcement but rulemaking by agency fiat, something Congress never authorized.
Cutting Off the Supply Chain
Beyond paperwork, Jared noted the deeper danger: attacking the supply chain itself. GOA’s legal brief, as Jared reported, makes the case that cutting off access to lawful gun stores is an infringement on the Second Amendment. In four years under Biden, the number of licensed gun dealers dropped by roughly 11%. Jared offered an analogy: imagine if the government shut down 11% of churches or bookstores. Nobody would accept that under the First Amendment, and yet gun stores face exactly that threat under the Second.
Trump’s Name Still Attached
The most explosive part of Jared’s report is the connection to Trump. Because this is the Trump administration’s DOJ defending these policies in court, Jared asked the blunt question: is Trump not telling the truth? If Trump truly opposes the zero tolerance policy, why are his DOJ lawyers still fighting to preserve it? Jared left his viewers with two possibilities: either DOJ leadership is out of control, or Trump is knowingly allowing this contradiction. “Either way,” Jared said, “it’s a really bad look.”
Gun Owners Deserve Better
From my perspective, Jared’s reporting raises a troubling but necessary question: is the DOJ simply stringing gun owners along? A verbal repeal with no legal teeth is meaningless if the next administration – or even the same one – can bring back the rule overnight. Gun owners deserve more than sound bites. They deserve legal certainty that prevents bureaucrats from rewriting laws on a whim. Until that happens, every promise of repeal feels hollow.
GOA’s Fight Could Set Precedent
Jared credited Gun Owners of America for pressing forward despite DOJ’s tactics. If GOA wins at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the outcome could not only protect thousands of dealers but also set a broader precedent: agencies like ATF cannot invent harsher rules than Congress allows. Even more importantly, it could establish that cutting off the gun supply chain is itself an unconstitutional infringement. That would be a game-changer in how courts interpret the Second Amendment.
A Battle Gun Owners Can’t Ignore
Jared closed his report with a call to action: support the groups fighting these battles in court, stay informed, and don’t let government agencies hide behind technicalities. He argued that the DOJ’s current posture is a deliberate attempt to avoid accountability. If the courts never rule on the substance of the policy, ATF could quietly return to the same tactics in the future. The only way to stop it for good is through binding legal precedent.
2A Under Threat
The contradiction Jared exposed cuts to the heart of trust in government. When the administration tells the public one story while its lawyers tell the courts another, it erodes confidence that gun owners are being dealt with honestly. Whether this is a case of Trump being misled by his own DOJ or Trump knowingly playing both sides, the result is the same: gun dealers remain vulnerable, and the Second Amendment remains under threat. As Jared Yanis made clear, the fight is far from over.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
