Here at defenseofournation.com, I have been asking an important question. One that, unfortunately, seems to be going unaddressed by others in the gun rights community. It is also a question that if left unanswered, could have bigger implications for the Second Amendment than people realize. The question is; what does Pam Bondi and her 2A task force consider to be an unconstitutional infringement against the right to keep and bear arms? When President Trump first issued his 2A executive order, I said that there would be some good things that would come from it, while posing my question at the same time. There is no arguing that Bondi has taken some steps that lend to the perception that she and Trump are fighting for our rights. Are they? Or, are they incrementally, in a fabianistic fashion, changing the understood meaning of the Second Amendment? To answer this question we have to compare what she has done to what she isn’t doing.

Yesterday, William Kirk, of the YouTube channel Washington Gun Law, released a video on a recent action taken by Bondi and the DOJ. Bondi has submitted a brief to the Supreme Court urging them to hear a case coming out of Hawaii, concerning the state’s attempts to prohibit people with conceal carry permits from carrying on private property without permission. Interesting. Why would she urge the court to grant certiorari in this case while ignoring Snopes v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island? (Those cases are far more important, in my opinion) Bondi is arguing that Hawaii’s law is infringing upon the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment, as the Bruen ruling holds that states cannot discriminate, or decide who may or may not obtain conceal carry permits through the tiers of scrutiny testing methods. She is making an argument in defense of gun rights, and it is historical as the DOJ has never done this— however—she is making this argument from the perspective that the 2A means people have the right to carry hand guns for self defense. That’s true, but as I argued in my last article, that isn’t necessarily defending the original intent of the Second Amendment. Is it?

To put this in perspective you have to look at everything Bondi is or isn’t doing. Again, the question must be asked; why isn’t she taking any meaningful action in the AWB cases the court keeps reconferencing? She seems to have a pattern of supporting actions that reinforce—in one way or another—government control. This is just my opinion, of course. When the news first broke that the DOJ would be investigating states that are infringing on the Second Amendment, the first thing she did was focus on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office and their corrupted permitting process. The state of California has some of the most draconian gun laws on the books, yet she is focusing on one county’s permitting process? That doesn’t make sense. It appears that Bondi does not consider being forced to ask permission to exercise a right, to be unconstitutional.

Over the past couple of months, we have seen Bondi and the DOJ respond to other court rulings as well. Last year, for a second time, a federal court—following the Bruen v. NYSRPA guidelines—struck down the ban on machine guns. Bondi has urged the Tenth Circuit to reverse that ruling, arguing that machine guns fall into the dangerous and unusual category, despite the fact that they were legal for most of the twentieth century. Don’t expect her endorsement in ending the NFA anytime soon. In another case, concerning the ATF and forced reset triggers—where a federal judge ordered the gun grabbing agency to return confiscated property—Bondi suggested that a background check be conducted before any triggers are returned. In California, there is a proposal to force buyers to undergo a background check to purchase a rifle barrel. It seems like she might be ok with background checks for gun parts, despite what federal law says.

This is just speculation, but it seems to me that Bondi is defending the 2A from the perspective that it is a government granted privilege, and not an unalienable right. Background checks and permits are just as unconstitutional as any gun ban. While self-defense is certainly an unalienable right, it wasn’t what the Second Amendment was written for. If, however, we allow that to be the predominant definition, and purpose of the Second Amendment, then self defense can be defined in controllable terms—up to possibly dictating what weapons are or are not acceptable in self defense applications. Like I said, that is just speculation, however, I maintain that we should be a bit more skeptical, and ask more questions pertaining to what the DOJ is doing, as opposed to hailing every move they make as the greatest thing since the Reece’s Peanut Butter Cup.

Why isn’t Bondi interested in Snopes v. Brown? Has she mentioned red flag laws at all? States across the nation are stepping up their efforts to pass their own gun bans because presumably, they see that the Supreme Court is showing little interest in hearing the pending cases, and perhaps, because they know Bondi is willing to overlook them. Perhaps I am wrong. Hopefully, I am. When Bondi and Trump start going after these bigger 2A issues, I will give them credit for doing so. Until then, I will remain skeptical. As we all should.

Article posted with permission from David Risselada

Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.