Justice Department Defends Itself Against Accusations of Anti-Gun Bias

Are the Justice Department and Attorney General Pam Bondi hostile to gun rights – or simply navigating a messy legal landscape while trying to move policy in a more pro–Second Amendment direction? That’s the debate exploding across the gun-rights world.

In a hard-hitting report, National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) president Dudley Brown accuses Bondi’s DOJ of falling short of its rhetoric and demands sweeping reversals of Biden-era rules. 

Meanwhile, journalist Cam Edwards and radio host Mark Walters argue the picture is more complicated: this DOJ may be the most pro-2A in modern history, yet it’s still defending some federal statutes and taking positions that rankle activists.

I think both threads are true at once – and that’s precisely why the friction is so intense.

NAGR’s Ultimatum: “Prove It With Policy Action”

Dudley Brown says gun owners have endured decades of Republican lip service with little to show for it. He’s not asking for praise; he’s issuing a checklist.

At the top: repeal the “engaged in the business” rulewhat he calls a Biden-era effort to sidestep Congress and track private sales, and begin the Administrative Procedure Act process to kill it outright.

Brown also demands DOJ stop making , what he calls anti-gun arguments in court, citing cases over 18–20-year-old handgun sales, NFA restrictions on short-barreled rifles, and bans affecting nonviolent felons. 

He pushes for a “clean house” of anti-gun holdovers inside DOJ, a halt to scanning and digitizing old Form 4473s at ATF, and the end of prosecutions he views as punishing otherwise law-abiding gun owners. He finishes with a call to repeal other Biden-era rules, from the “frame or receiver” regulation to policies that have cost veterans their rights.

Brown’s message is blunt: words aren’t enough; actions will decide whether Bondi earns gun owners’ trust.

Cam Edwards: The Most Pro-2A DOJ – With Caveats

On his show, Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Cam Edwards frames the fight this way: two things can be true. He credits Bondi’s DOJ with being the most pro-Second Amendment department in our lifetimes, while also noting it continues to defend some longstanding federal gun laws.

He points to the Reese litigation over handgun purchases by 18–20-year-olds: DOJ did not appeal a loss at the Fifth Circuit, and it pushed back against the notion that it demanded membership lists from gun-rights groups. 

At the same time, Edwards notes DOJ is defending parts of the National Firearms Act, has argued that the $200 suppressor tax is a “modest burden,” and has urged the Supreme Court not to take up certain challenges to short-barreled rifle restrictions – positions that understandably rankle activists.

In other words: progress is real, but it isn’t uniform.

The Membership-List Firestorm – And What Actually Happened

A big part of the recent outrage came from confusion in the Reese case. Some activists claimed DOJ wanted gun-owner membership lists from organizations involved in the lawsuit. Edwards says that’s not accurate.

According to his reporting, the judge crafted an order that could have required producing certain member information; DOJ and the plaintiffs then filed a joint motion to amend that language. That’s not nothing – getting the government to agree that it doesn’t want to build lists matters – but the viral allegation didn’t match the filings.

This is one of those moments where both vigilance and precision are essential; overstating the threat can backfire even as we fight real ones.

Mark Walters: Don’t Feed a Circular Firing Squad

Armed American Radio host Mark Walters relays what he heard from longtime Second Amendment litigator Alan Gottlieb: DOJ wasn’t seeking lists in Reese and some critics owe the department an apology for saying otherwise. Walters is not interested in denigrating any pro-gun group – he calls them allies – but he’s adamant that facts matter. 

He also acknowledges a deeper frustration among activists: if President Trump issued an executive order to review and correct anti-gun positions, why are vestiges of the old litigation playbook still popping up?

It’s a fair question.

Walters advises caution before calling for Bondi’s firing, warning that such absolutist demands are unlikely to succeed and could weaken influence where it counts most – inside the courtroom.

Where DOJ Has Shifted – And Why It Matters

Edwards highlights a notable pivot in the Fifth Circuit suppressor case: DOJ initially said suppressors aren’t protected by the Second Amendment, then reversed course “in light of President Trump’s executive order,” acknowledging they are protected – while still defending the $200 tax as permissible. 

That is, by any measure, a meaningful improvement from the previous administration’s posture. It also captures the tension at the heart of this fight: activists want clean breaks with the past, while government lawyers tend to move incrementally.

My view: if a right is a right, it shouldn’t hinge on an agency’s willingness to “meet in the middle.” But in litigation, half-steps sometimes precede the leap.

Where DOJ Still Digs In – And Why Activists Bristle

Despite some pro-2A briefs, Edwards notes that DOJ continues to defend core NFA restrictions and has opposed Supreme Court review of certain SBR challenges (the “Rush” litigation, by way of example).

In other cases – like challenges to handgun sales to adults under 21 – different circuits have reached different conclusions, which means DOJ must file briefs whether it likes it or not. That’s where strategy and principle collide. 

A truly pro-rights department could choose not to defend statutes it believes are unconstitutional, but as Edwards points out, governments rarely do that.

To activists, “that’s just how it is” isn’t persuasive; to career litigators, deviating from the norm can carry institutional costs. The end result is predictable friction.

Dudley Brown’s Bottom Line: No More Excuses

Back on the activist front, Brown says time is short and the window could close. He credits some strong DOJ steps and senses Bondi wants to be remembered as the most pro-gun attorney general, but insists that only bold action will make that true.

He wants the “engaged in the business” rule scrapped, the “frame or receiver” rule disappeared, veterans’ records cleared, and any hint of membership-list gathering banished. 

And he wants the ATF’s mass digitization of old gun-sale records stopped, the records scrubbed, and the agency’s authority to harass lawful owners curtailed.

Agree or disagree with every item, there’s no mistaking the thrust: pressure works only if it’s applied.

Friendly Fire – or Constructive Pressure?

Edwards says he admires DOJ Civil Rights chief Harmeet Dhillon’s work (she’s publicly defended the department’s broader 2A record), but bristled when she characterized some criticism as unhelpful “friendly fire.”

Walters echoes that sentiment: it’s the movement’s job to question the government – especially a friendly government – when it takes positions that strain the Second Amendment. 

I’m with them. This doesn’t have to devolve into purity tests or personal attacks. But “trust us” has never been a substitute for a transparent legal strategy. Iron sharpens iron; respectful pressure is how you keep an administration aligned with its promises.

Pam Bondi’s Role – and the Risks of Maximalist Demands

Dudley Brown is challenging Bondi directly; some have gone further and called for her ouster. Edwards calls that a political dead end and asks a pragmatic question: even if she were replaced, would her successor actually be more aggressive on 2A?

There’s also the reality that litigation stances are hammered out by teams of lawyers across the department. That’s not an excuse; it’s a reminder that changing course requires coordinated direction.

The smarter play is to extract clear, public commitments on specific items – and to measure DOJ by those yardsticks.

What Clarity Would Look Like Right Now

If DOJ wants to quiet the “anti-gun bias” chorus without muzzling legitimate criticism, it could:

• (1) publish an updated litigation guidance memo aligning every division with the president’s executive order on Second Amendment protections;
• (2) announce the start of APA repeals for rules like “engaged in the business” and “frame or receiver,” with timelines and lead dockets;
• (3) commit in writing that DOJ will not seek membership lists in Second Amendment litigation and will oppose any court-ordered list production;
• (4) publicly audit and freeze ATF digitization practices pending a legal review of the 4473 database concerns; and
• (5) signal how it intends to approach NFA litigation after Bruen – not by doubling down reflexively, but by acknowledging where modern statutes lack historical pedigree.

None of this pre-decides every case; all of it would restore confidence.

The Path Forward: Unity Without Silence

Dudley Brown is right that promises are worthless without follow-through. Cam Edwards is right that this is the most pro-2A DOJ we’ve seen, while still imperfect. Mark Walters is right that friendly fire becomes counterproductive when it’s factually wrong or strategically impossible.

The sweet spot is principled pressure: praise real wins, demand course corrections where the Constitution – and Bruen – require them, and keep the coalition focused on results. If Bondi’s DOJ embraces that transparency and delivers on the obvious fixes, the “anti-gun bias” narrative will evaporate on its own.

If not, expect the pressure to intensify – because that’s how a movement protects a right it refuses to lose.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.