Trump’s Crime Crackdown Meets Resistance From Democrats Pushing Gun Control

On one side, the Trump administration says it’s leaning in on violent crime, deploying federal resources and publicly shaming jurisdictions that won’t cooperate. On the other, Illinois Democrats are doubling down on gun-control policies and expanding “sensitive place” carve-outs that restrict where lawful citizens can carry.

That’s the tension Cam Edwards explored on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co with guest Mark Walters of Armed American Radio – and their conversation stitched together Supreme Court signals, Chicago’s crime numbers, and dueling philosophies of public safety. My takeaway? If you care about safer streets, the debate you heard here is the one to watch.

What Cam & Mark Are Actually Arguing

Edwards frames the moment as a collision between two strategies: the Trump team’s crime-control push in Chicago versus Illinois Democrats’ insistence that “public safety runs through gun control.” Walters is blunter. He says Democrats are elevating politics over victims, and that Chicago’s leadership refuses to confront the offenders driving the body count. You don’t have to agree with his tone to see their shared premise: the city’s system is clearing almost none of its non-fatal shootings and repeatedly releasing dangerous people – a reality gun policy alone can’t fix.

SCOTUS Steps In Early on “Vampire” Carry Bans

Before getting to Chicago, Edwards and Walters talked about the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii’s “vampire rule.” As Edwards explains, most states presume carry is allowed on private property unless the owner posts a no-guns sign. Hawaii (and a handful of blue states) flip it: carry is banned everywhere unless a business posts “guns welcome.”

Walters calls the Court’s decision to take the case at an early stage “unusual but logical,” suggesting the justices – perhaps Justice Thomas in particular – are laying bedrock for how “sensitive places” must be defined after Bruen. I read it the same way: the Court seems poised to curb creative end-runs around the Second Amendment.

Property Rights vs. Public Access – Cam’s Line in the Sand

Edwards is careful on the key point: the Court is not going to say private owners can’t keep guns off their premises. The question is how owners must give notice and whether the default is “carry allowed” (with opt-out signage) or “carry banned” (with opt-in signage). Historically, Edwards notes, the default has been permission – an owner who objects posts the sign. That fits the constitutional structure far better than blanket bans that only yield to a “guns welcome” placard.

How These Bans Work on the Ground

To illustrate the real-world tangle, Walters shares an Arizona anecdote: even in a constitutional carry state, entering a restaurant serving alcohol requires a physical permit card – and many businesses post their own bans anyway. The result, he says, is confusing rules that nudge even conscientious carriers to disarm or risk a rules tripwire. Whether you agree with his choices, the point lands: a maze of defaults, signs, and exceptions trains otherwise law-abiding people to leave their means of self-defense at home – without any evidence the maze deters actual criminals.

Chicago: Last to the Party on Carry, First in Frustration

Pivoting to Chicago, Edwards reminds us Illinois was the last state to adopt concealed carry, only after the Seventh Circuit said its total public-carry ban violated the Second Amendment. Since then, permits have grown, even in Cook County, but violence remains stubborn. Edwards’ core critique isn’t “not enough gun laws” – it’s that the system won’t hold violent people accountable.

According to his reporting, the clearance rate for non-fatal shootings hovers around 5%. That number is the beating heart of this debate: if 95% of shooters who don’t kill their target are never identified, arrested, or charged, no amount of signage or safe-storage PSAs will change offender behavior.

Weekend Carnage – and the White House Megaphone

Walters describes a telling moment: at a White House briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt held up an AWR Hawkins report on Chicago’s weekend shootings (initially 30 shot, 5 killed; the numbers rose as victims succumbed). Walters interprets that as evidence the administration is reading and amplifying gun-rights reporting – and argues the political class is finally acknowledging the scope of the problem. You can call that symbolism; it’s also an unmistakable signal about the messaging contest ahead: “Guns are to blame” versus “the criminals are.”

The Emboldenment Engine: A 5% Solve Rate

Edwards doesn’t stop at stats. He explains the psychology the numbers create: if a shooter believes there’s a 95% chance no one will ever face a judge, they’re more likely to escalate, including killing a witness or victim during a robbery or carjacking. That’s not theory; it’s standard criminology: certainty of punishment deters more than severity does.

My view: until Chicago’s clearance and conviction rates improve, any gun-control add-on is legislative performance art. Even those who support new restrictions should demand a functioning justice system first.

The “Recidivist Report”: Three Years for a Near-Murder in a Gun-Free Zone

To underline how lenient outcomes feed cynicism, Edwards offers his “Recidivist Report” example: a gang member who stabbed a rival repeatedly on a CTA platform – a place where lawful carry is banned – gets six years on paper but will be free in roughly three. The victim suffered permanent brain damage. Edwards calls it a “slap on the wrist.” I’ll go further: when the state insists you disarm on transit but can’t keep predators off those platforms – or keep them in custody after extreme violence – it breaks the social contract. That’s a recipe for public cynicism and private fear.

Competing Prescriptions: Ban More Guns – or Jail More Shooters

Gun-control advocates in Illinois often blame Indiana gun laws or call for broader federal bans (from “assault weapons” to suing manufacturers). Edwards and Walters counter with a different remedy set: boost clearance rates, incapacitate repeat violent offenders, and stop criminalizing ordinary possession by the peaceable.

They even point to Baltimore, where, Walters notes, new minimums for violent felons with illegal guns correspond with notable homicide declines. The lesson isn’t “lock up everyone for everything”; it’s that targeting the small cohort driving most violence works better than sweeping rules aimed at millions who’ll never hurt anyone.

The Politics Underneath the Policy

Walters uses moral language – calling the refusal to change “evil” – to describe Democratic resistance to Trump’s crackdown. That’s his framing. Mine is drier but leads to the same place: when a city makes it easier to possess a gun illegally than it is to solve a shooting, you incentivize the wrong behavior. Leaders who prefer symbolic laws over proven enforcement strategies aren’t protecting rights or lives. And when Chicago officials fixate on out-of-state gun shops while tolerating a 5% shooting clearance rate, they look unserious to anyone outside the bubble.

What to Watch Next: Sensitive Places, Transit Bans, and a Crime Agenda

Edwards is hopeful the Supreme Court’s sensitive-places guidance will rein in outlier rules – like New York’s and Illinois’s bans on carry in public transportation that some circuits have upheld with reasoning Bruen doesn’t support. If the justices restore a sane, history-based floor, it won’t fix Chicago’s policing or prosecution, but it will stop the proliferation of “vampire” defaults that disarm only the conscientious.

In parallel, the administration’s crime push will live or die on whether it raises clearance rates and disables the repeat offenders who make neighborhoods unlivable. That’s the point both Edwards and Walters keep returning to – and they’re right.

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.