I Didn’t Expect This – Trump’s DOJ Signals The 2nd Amendment Might Not Protect These Guns

In a surprising legal maneuver, President Trump’s Department of Justice recently argued that fully automatic firearms, or machine guns, are not protected by the Second Amendment. This development, covered in depth by gun rights commentator Howard Gatch of the Hegshot87 channel, left many in the firearms community stunned.

For a president widely seen as a defender of gun rights, this stance struck a sour chord. Gatch did not hold back in voicing his disagreement, arguing that the DOJ’s interpretation fundamentally misunderstands the core purpose of the Second Amendment.

Howard Gatch’s Position: This Isn’t Just About Self-Defense

Gatch wastes no time establishing the heart of his argument. In his words, the Second Amendment is not primarily about hunting or even home defense, though those are important secondary benefits. Its true purpose, he argues, is to protect the American people against tyranny. When you view it through that lens, restrictions on fully automatic weapons become hard to justify. Gatch believes the Trump DOJ’s reasoning, focusing on “common use” and “lawful purposes” like self-defense, misses the point entirely.

The Justin Brown Case: A Constitutional Test

The controversy revolves around the case of Justin Brown in Mississippi, who was charged for possessing an unregistered full-auto firearm. A Fifth Circuit judge, Carlton Reeves, dismissed the case, citing the landmark Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That decision emphasized a “historical tradition” test for evaluating gun laws. According to Gatch, the judge rightly found that heavy restrictions on full-autos are a relatively modern development and not consistent with historical American firearm ownership.

The Trump DOJ Disagrees – And Wants the Case Reinstated

Despite the judge’s ruling, Trump’s Department of Justice pushed to reinstate the case, arguing that full-auto weapons fall outside the Second Amendment’s protections. Their position is that these firearms are not in “common use” and aren’t typically associated with lawful purposes like personal defense. This argument, as Gatch explains, is not only flawed but contradictory to the entire premise of the Bruen decision. It also appears to overlook the long and relatively uncontroversial history of private machine gun ownership before 1986.

Historical Context: Guns Were Never Meant to Be Restricted by Type

Gatch reminds viewers that when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, they did not exclude any type of armament. Cannons, large-caliber weapons, and repeating firearms all existed, and none were singled out for restriction. The idea that modern gun control is somehow in keeping with the Founders’ vision, he argues, is revisionist nonsense. The 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1986 Hughes Amendment, which banned the registration of new machine guns, came much later and marked a stark break from earlier American practice.

Few Crimes Involving Legal Machine Guns

One of Gatch’s most compelling rebuttals is statistical. He notes that since 1934, only four recorded shootings involved legally owned full-auto weapons – two committed by law enforcement and two by civilians. These are staggeringly low numbers, especially considering the heated rhetoric around such weapons. The data, according to Gatch, show that legal full-auto owners are among the most responsible gun owners in the country. In his view, the DOJ’s argument is not based on public safety but political optics.

“Common Use” Argument Debunked

Another point of contention for Gatch is the DOJ’s use of the phrase “common use” to justify limiting the Second Amendment’s reach. He finds this problematic, especially when considering that over three million items – ranging from suppressors to short-barreled rifles to fully automatic weapons – are currently registered under the National Firearms Act. If scarcity is artificially created through legislative red tape, Gatch argues, then it’s unfair to cite that scarcity as a reason to further restrict the public’s access.

The Inconvenient Legacy of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act

Gatch also touches on what he sees as the biggest blemish on Ronald Reagan’s Second Amendment record: the Hughes Amendment, which was part of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. While the bill included positive reforms, like lifting restrictions on ammunition purchases and streamlining firearms transportation across state lines, it also banned the sale of new machine guns to civilians. According to Gatch, this legislative change created a dangerous precedent that runs counter to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.

Technology Always Evolves – The Constitution Still Applies

In addressing critics who argue that the Second Amendment could not have anticipated modern weaponry, Gatch reminds his viewers that weapon innovation was ongoing even in the 1700s. From pepperbox pistols to early repeating rifles, inventors were always looking for faster and more effective firearms. To pretend the Founders didn’t understand this trend is disingenuous. “They didn’t carve out exceptions because they understood the principle,” Gatch says. “It wasn’t about the musket – it was about the right.”

A Call for Clarity Within the Trump Administration

While some gun rights advocates are quick to label Trump as anti-gun for this DOJ position, Gatch takes a more measured approach. He doesn’t believe Trump himself authored the argument, but he does urge the administration to correct it. He suggests reviving the Second Amendment Task Force and appointing a “2A Czar” to guide policy and legal decisions. Someone with a deep understanding of the Second Amendment’s original intent could ensure that the administration doesn’t send conflicting messages to gun owners.

Registry Debate: A Legal Contradiction?

Gatch closes with a provocative point about the legal inconsistency of having a registry for machine guns. He notes that the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act expressly forbade the creation of a gun registry – yet the NFA registry for items like full-autos and suppressors continues to exist. If the law bans registries, Gatch argues, then those records should be dismantled. In his view, the government can’t selectively enforce constitutional protections based on the type of weapon a person owns.

A Moment for the Gun Community to Speak Up

Howard Gatch’s commentary underscores the tension between political messaging and constitutional fidelity. While some may see this DOJ stance as a minor issue or a legal technicality, Gatch sees it as a potential turning point. If the Trump administration wants to maintain trust with gun owners, it must ensure its actions align with its rhetoric. The Second Amendment, in Gatch’s view, and in the eyes of many Americans, is not a privilege granted by government, but a right that must be defended without compromise.

For now, it remains to be seen whether the Trump DOJ will reverse course or double down. But one thing is clear: the debate over what the Second Amendment protects is far from settled, and voices like Howard Gatch’s are making sure gun owners are paying attention.