Trump DOJ Just Ended Felonies for Carrying Shotguns & Rifles in D.C.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) broke the news first on social media: the Trump administration will stop charging gun owners with felonies for carrying rifles and shotguns in public without a license in Washington, D.C. According to GOA, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, the new top federal prosecutor in the District, said the D.C. ban “is clearly a violation of the Supreme Court’s holdings” in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). That single statement signaled a major policy shift, one that many thought impossible just months ago.

Mark Smith: “Best 2A Administration in History”

Attorney Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, called the decision “major, major breaking news.” Smith praised President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for backing the change and credited the administration’s Second Amendment Task Force for pushing the DOJ in this direction. In his words, this is more proof that “the Trump administration is the best Second Amendment administration in history, period.” Smith emphasized that the policy isn’t random – it stems directly from Supreme Court precedent affirming the right to keep and bear arms in public.

Jeanine Pirro’s Role

Jeanine Pirro, once a Fox News host and now U.S. Attorney for D.C., was at the center of the announcement. She confirmed that her office will not pursue felony charges against people merely for carrying rifles or shotguns. Pirro told the Washington Post that D.C.’s total ban was flatly unconstitutional under Heller and Bruen. However, she stressed this does not give violent felons a free pass: her office will still prosecute prohibited persons under federal law, including those caught with large-capacity magazines while barred from owning firearms.

A Solicitor General’s Backing

Smith also pointed to the importance of Solicitor General John Sauer in shaping this policy. Sauer, he explained, represents the federal government before the Supreme Court and has been openly supportive of expanding Second Amendment protections. According to Smith, the DOJ’s shift on D.C.’s rifle and shotgun ban came with Sauer’s endorsement – another sign that Trump’s legal team is deliberately aligning prosecutorial policy with the Court’s rulings in Heller and Bruen.

Cam Edwards: A Victory with Caveats

Not everyone is ready to declare a full win. Journalist Cam Edwards, host of Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, acknowledged this is “good news” but urged caution. Edwards noted that most people don’t actually carry rifles or shotguns around Washington, D.C., and that the practical impact may be limited. He argued that the DOJ must provide far more clarity on what this means in real-world terms. For example, does the new policy apply only to D.C. residents with registered long guns? What happens if someone from Virginia brings an AR-15 into the city? And what about D.C.’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” or large-capacity magazines?

Questions Still Unanswered

Edwards raised a critical concern: the DOJ announcement only addressed long guns, leaving handgun laws untouched. In D.C., concealed carrying a handgun is still subject to a strict local permit system that excludes most non-residents. Edwards questioned why the administration didn’t move first to fix the handgun issue, since handguns – not rifles or shotguns – are the primary tools people use for self-defense in public. In his view, changing the handgun carry regime would have had a far larger impact on ordinary Americans’ rights.

A Symbolic Breakthrough

From my perspective, while Edwards’ concerns are valid, symbolism matters here. For decades, D.C. has been ground zero for some of the nation’s harshest gun restrictions. To have the U.S. Attorney openly declare that one of those bans is unconstitutional is no small thing. Even if most people won’t start slinging shotguns across their backs in the capital, the principle is what counts: DOJ is finally admitting the Second Amendment protects more than just keeping a handgun at home.

Why Heller and Bruen Matter

Pirro’s statement that the ban violates Heller and Bruen is legally significant. In Heller (2008), the Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s handgun ban and ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. In Bruen (2022), the Court went further, ruling that the right to bear arms includes carrying them in public. Together, those cases dismantle the argument that cities can impose blanket prohibitions on ordinary citizens carrying firearms. By citing both, Pirro signaled that the DOJ’s position is firmly anchored in Supreme Court precedent.

A Step, Not the Finish Line

Smith celebrated this as proof of progress, and rightly so. But Edwards’ skepticism highlights the road ahead. For example, what about D.C.’s registry requirement? If someone has a legally owned but unregistered rifle, will they still be charged? What about visitors from constitutional carry states who don’t need a permit at home? Without clear answers, there’s a risk that gun owners could test the policy and end up in handcuffs anyway. That uncertainty underscores why DOJ needs to issue detailed guidance, not just broad statements.

The Larger Strategy

Smith argued this move is part of a larger pattern: the Trump DOJ is gradually aligning federal enforcement with the Supreme Court’s direction. He pointed to other cases, such as challenges to AR-15 magazine bans and restrictions on suppressors, where the Solicitor General has supported strong Second Amendment claims. In Smith’s view, this is how constitutional change happens – not in one sweeping order, but in steady steps that build momentum over time.

The Political Angle

There’s no denying the politics here. For Trump and Bondi, this decision is an opportunity to reinforce their image as champions of the Second Amendment heading into 2025. Supporters like Smith are already framing it as historic. Critics, however, will argue that selective enforcement leaves too many questions open. Edwards’ cautionary take reflects that tension: while the move is bold, it is also incomplete. Gun owners need certainty, not just symbolic wins.

Don’t Leave Handguns Behind

If there’s one point where Edwards’ critique rings loudest, it’s on handguns. For self-defense in an urban environment like D.C., a pistol is far more practical than a shotgun or rifle. The Bruen decision was about public carry of handguns, yet DOJ has not touched D.C.’s restrictive permit system. If this administration truly wants to align itself with the Supreme Court, that issue cannot be ignored. This rifle-and-shotgun change is encouraging, but the next logical step must be addressing handgun carry rights in the nation’s capital.

This is a Big Deal

Gun Owners of America delivered the headline first. Mark Smith declared it a historic win. Cam Edwards pumped the brakes, reminding everyone of the fine print. All three voices – GOA, Smith, and Edwards – agree on one thing: this is a big deal. The Trump DOJ has effectively acknowledged that one of D.C.’s oldest gun bans is unconstitutional and not worth enforcing. But whether this marks the beginning of a new era or just a symbolic gesture will depend on what comes next. For now, one thing is certain: the ground in D.C.’s gun laws has shifted, and the debate over how far those shifts will go has only just begun.