Cam Edwards opens his Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co interview sounding like a guy who knows the calendar matters in politics and law. He tells viewers the conversation with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon was supposed to happen the day before, but the timing shift turned into a lucky break.
Cam says that’s because the Department of Justice had just announced a brand-new lawsuit against the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., aimed at the District’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” He makes the point plainly: this wasn’t a routine press release, it was a historic move.
Harmeet Dhillon, leading the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and its Second Amendment Section, joins him with a tone that’s both official and personal. She thanks Cam for having her, and then she dives right into what she sees as the big picture.
And that big picture, in her view, is simple: the federal government is finally using civil-rights enforcement to go after gun-control laws that she believes violate constitutional protections.
A DOJ Lawsuit Against D.C.’s “Assault Weapon” Ban
Cam Edwards frames the D.C. case as a “first.” He says this is the first time the DOJ has actively led litigation against a gun ban, even though Dhillon herself has been involved in prior arguments against bans like Illinois’s.
Dhillon agrees with Cam’s framing and says the department is “very proud” to be leading. She also drops a detail that makes the conversation feel less like theory and more like lived experience.
Harmeet Dhillon tells Cam she’s a gun owner and she’s personally gone through D.C.’s process of registering firearms she brought from California after taking the job. She describes going to the desk at the D.C. government building and doing the paperwork, and she says the experience left her frustrated.
That frustration becomes part of her case for why DOJ is suing.
Dhillon points out that D.C. was the “birthplace” of the modern legal movement for Second Amendment rights, referencing the 2008 Heller decision. She reminds Cam that it took a lawsuit brought by a special police officer to force the District to recognize a basic right to possess arms.
And yet, she argues, even after years of litigation and even after Bruen, D.C. is still holding onto what she calls an “outmoded definition” of what firearms law-abiding citizens can own.
Dhillon says DOJ is aiming to push the issue back toward the D.C. Circuit and, if needed, the U.S. Supreme Court.
She signals she’d like the case to help settle a question she thinks has been dragged out too long: whether AR-15s and other popular semi-automatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment.
That’s a bold objective, and it’s also the kind of thing that either becomes a landmark moment – or becomes an expensive fight that eats years.
Either way, you can hear both Cam and Dhillon treating it as a line in the sand.
The Supreme Court Signal And The “Common Use” Argument
Cam Edwards widens the lens and points out that there are other cases “percolating” in the courts already. He mentions a challenge to Cook County, Illinois, and says the Supreme Court has been sitting on that issue in conference.
Cam also notes something that matters a lot in appellate land: circuit splits. He tells Dhillon that in the past she has pointed out there isn’t a clean split among the federal circuits yet on bans of commonly owned firearms, but he suggests that could change depending on cases like one in the Third Circuit involving New Jersey’s bans and large-capacity magazine restrictions.
Then Cam says what many gun-rights watchers have been waiting to hear from an administration official: DOJ taking the lead is also a signal to the Supreme Court that the Department believes it’s time for the justices to take up the “assault weapon” ban question directly.
Dhillon agrees, and she brings Justice Clarence Thomas into it. She says Thomas has signaled over the years – through remarks, concurrences, and dissents – that he thinks the Court needs to address this issue.
She says she expects more justices will join that view, and she argues the “most commonly possessed rifles in the United States” should be protected under longstanding Supreme Court analysis.
Dhillon’s framing is basically: if a firearm is common and widely owned for lawful purposes, calling it “too dangerous” doesn’t erase the right.
That’s a powerful argument, and it’s also the part of the debate where courts have been doing gymnastics for years. Some judges treat these rifles like they’re one step away from machine guns, and others treat them like the modern equivalent of the most normal rifle you’d see in a safe.
Dhillon clearly believes D.C. is on the wrong side of that line, and she says refusing to honor those protections means violating the civil rights of American citizens—including those who live in D.C.
Her point is blunt: residents of Washington, D.C. are still Americans. They don’t lose rights just because they live in a city that votes differently or regulates differently.
The U.S. Virgin Islands Case And “No American Left Behind”
Cam Edwards then pivots to what he calls a surprise. He says he didn’t have the U.S. Virgin Islands on his “Second Amendment Section bingo card,” but after reading the complaint, he calls it “crazy.”
He lays out what jumped off the page to him: permit delays that can stretch a year or more, plus a gun-storage scheme that demands a certain kind of safe bolted to the wall – and then requires the owner to let police come in without a warrant to inspect it.
Cam asks Dhillon if that’s accurate, and she says yes.
Dhillon calls the scheme “blatantly unconstitutional” in multiple ways. She frames it as part of a principle she repeats: “no American left behind.”
She acknowledges these places can be treated like afterthoughts because they’re far-flung or smaller. But she argues that’s exactly why the DOJ should act, because rights still exist there.
Dhillon then draws a line between the Virgin Islands and the opposite extreme: Los Angeles County.
She says DOJ has also gone after Los Angeles County over what she describes as three-year delays in processing concealed carry permits. She calls that outrageous and says, flatly, that delays can amount to “justice denied.”
Then she tosses in a comparison that hits hard because it’s so easy to picture.
Dhillon tells Cam to imagine applying for a parade permit in Los Angeles—something like a Black Lives Matter march—and being told the city would respond in three years. She says everyone would recognize that as insane because it would violate First Amendment expectations.
Her argument is that gun permitting delays should be treated the same way, because the Second Amendment is a core constitutional right, not a hobby that government can put at the bottom of the inbox.
It’s a smart analogy, and it highlights a real frustration: some jurisdictions treat time as a weapon. They don’t have to deny you outright if they can drown you in months and years.
And honestly, this is where a lot of “gun control” stops looking like public safety and starts looking like bureaucratic punishment.
How DOJ Picks Targets And What Resistance Looks Like Inside
Cam Edwards asks a question that people always wonder about: with so many places to challenge – New York, Santa Clara County fees, long delays – how does the Second Amendment Section decide what to take on?
Dhillon says she won’t reveal the “secret sauce,” but she gives her philosophy. She says you can’t go after every jurisdiction at once, so you pick cases that let you make points in court that become precedent others must follow.
She calls it “impact litigation” thinking.
Then she says something that matters more than it should: resources.
Dhillon tells Cam the division is understaffed, and she also admits that some career staff aren’t thrilled about Second Amendment litigation. She says some are “quite critical” of the effort, and she says members of Congress don’t like DOJ doing this work either.
So, according to Dhillon, some of the push is internal and political, not just legal. She describes volunteers inside the Civil Rights Division stepping up to help, including former military members and gun owners.
She also says they need more lawyers and notes they’re hiring in general, welcoming applicants who care about the Second Amendment.
Cam brings up a common critique – that the Civil Rights Division shouldn’t be defending the Second Amendment – and Dhillon pushes back by pointing to the ratification debates around the 14th Amendment and the right of freed slaves to keep and bear arms.
Her point is that gun rights have deep roots in civil-rights history, and she argues some modern gun-control defenses rely on older laws that were used to disarm vulnerable groups.
Whether people like that framing or not, it’s hard to deny the Civil Rights Division is stepping into territory that used to feel politically untouchable.
And that, by itself, is a shift.
Dhillon’s “Arm Yourselves” Message And A Broader View Of Rights
The conversation turns personal again when Dhillon talks about speaking with Jewish groups and a rabbi inside DOJ about hate-crime work to protect houses of worship.
She says she tells those groups to “arm yourselves,” acknowledging it may not be culturally familiar for some communities. But she calls it a moral duty to defend home, liberty, and life.
Cam Edwards responds by agreeing that these aren’t hypotheticals. He points out that real people are impacted by the laws being challenged, and he mentions rabbis in places like Los Angeles who might want to follow her advice but could face years-long delays.
Dhillon says attacks on synagogues, churches, and religious symbols are real, and she ties that to her broader argument that rights don’t defend themselves. She says citizens have to stand up for rights across the Bill of Rights – she even name-checks the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments too.
Her framing is that this isn’t left versus right. She calls it a human rights issue and a natural law issue, and she says the founders were wise to set protections that the federal government should affirmatively defend.
Then Dhillon makes a promise that’s going to get repeated and replayed by a lot of people: she tells Cam to “give us time,” and says that by the end of the administration, people will see “substantially more liberty” in the Second Amendment area than they thought was possible.
That’s a big statement. And it sets expectations.
My honest reaction is this: if DOJ follows through with consistent, strategic litigation – and doesn’t get derailed by internal resistance or political turbulence – this could actually reshape the map. Not overnight, not everywhere, but enough to force real change.
At the same time, Cam Edwards flags a tension on the way out. After thanking Dhillon, he tells viewers he plans to reach out to Solicitor General D. John Sauer because some DOJ positions in other areas have confused or angered gun-rights advocates, including positions on NFA items and even arguments about switchblades.
Cam’s closing point is basically: two things can be true. DOJ can be doing historic work in one lane while taking frustrating positions in another.
And that’s probably the most realistic summary of where the Second Amendment stands today: real movement, real conflict, and a lot riding on which fights the government chooses to pick – and win.
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.
