Trump Pulls Rank on DOJ After Major Guns Rights Fight

Donald Trump seated at a table between two desk phones — Photo: Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock

President Trump told the Justice Department to treat the Second Amendment like a right, not a permit with a price tag—and the machinery of government actually shifted.

Story Snapshot

Executive Order 14206 ordered a sweep of recent gun rules and a plan to protect gun rights.
The Justice Department launched a federal path to restore firearm rights for eligible applicants.
Federal lawyers sued San Jose over a $1,600 carry-permit fee they call unconstitutional.
The new Second Amendment Section anchors its work to Executive Order 14206.

Trump’s order forced a federal course correction

Executive Order 14206 did not waffle. It told the Attorney General to examine all recent orders and rules from the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, identify Second Amendment problems, and bring a plan to fix them to the President. The text targeted actions from January 2021 through January 2025. That scope mattered. It pulled controversial policies into review and put the burden back on the government to justify any friction placed on ordinary citizens.

The shift showed up fast in policy signals and enforcement posture. After the order, the department moved off the “zero tolerance” rhetoric that had rattled many gun dealers and owners. The principle was straightforward: rights are not favors. If the government adds cost, delay, or maze-like demands, it must point to a clear historical tradition that supports those limits. That is the Supreme Court’s test after the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling, and it is now the operating floor, not the ceiling.

Rights restoration now has a federal lane

The Justice Department announced a new process to restore federal firearm rights for eligible people who are currently prohibited. The release said the Attorney General finalized a regulation and launched a path for applicants to seek relief under federal law. That is a major change from years when Congress withheld funding for such reviews. The message is limited but clear: if someone can show they no longer pose a risk under the standards set in the rule, the government will hear the case and decide on the record.

Critics call the restart a gift to the gun industry and warn of loopholes and harm if decisions are opaque. A gun-control group leader used those words, and public radio coverage echoed the transparency concern. The claim deserves scrutiny, but the facts on the table are stronger for the existence of the process than for the alleged dangers. A rights system must judge individuals, not classes forever. That view fits both the Constitution’s text and common sense about redemption and due process.

San Jose’s price wall meets the Bruen test

The Justice Department sued San Jose, arguing the city’s nearly $1,600 fee to carry a firearm is an unconstitutional financial barrier. The complaint frames the charge as an “exorbitant” toll that prices out ordinary people. Federal lawyers linked the case to the Civil Rights Division’s new Second Amendment Section and to Executive Order 14206. The legal theory tracks the Supreme Court’s directive: a modern rule must align with the nation’s historical tradition, and steep fees that choke access likely do not.

The department also put its view in plain English: when a permit costs several times more than a typical handgun, the fee looks like a ban disguised as paperwork. Opponents will argue cities need tools to vet applicants and fund safety checks. Fair enough—basic fees to cover real administrative costs can make sense. But turning a right into a luxury purchase fails both the historical standard and basic fairness. Working families should not have less self-defense because City Hall wants a budget plug.

The internal fight and what comes next

Pressure builds inside and outside the department. Some Democratic senators blasted the Justice Department for not fighting hard enough to defend old federal gun limits and called those laws “foundational” for violence prevention. The critique aims at institutional duty. But duty also runs to the Constitution. When courts say a rule cannot stand, continuing to enforce it without a strong legal basis erodes trust and invites chaos. The better path is to align policy with the rights the Court has affirmed.

Two open loops remain. First, the internal plan Executive Order 14206 demanded is not public in this record. Lawsuits seek it, and releasing it would help the country see the roadmap and measure results. Second, the courts have not yet ruled on the San Jose case or the restoration framework. That is fine. Strong cases welcome daylight. If the department’s posture holds, expect more actions against burdens that act like bans, more clarity on restoration standards, and a federal stance that treats the Second Amendment as a right for everyone, not a privilege for the few.