There was a time when Americans believed campaign promises were supposed to mean something.
Adorable, right.
Today, we get DLC civil rights, subscription-based freedoms, and a Department of Justice that treats the Constitution like a Terms of Service agreement nobody actually reads.
Welcome to the Trump–Bondi era of gun policy, where the Second Amendment is loudly declared a “first-class right”… while quietly being shoved into a filing cabinet labeled “We’ll Circle Back.”
Here’s the absurd part:
We’re watching a supposedly pro–Second Amendment administration defend the National Firearms Act in court, while gun-control groups file briefs on the same side, while Congress sends letters begging DOJ to respect Congress’s own intent.
And the starring prop is a $0 tax that still behaves like a $200 leash.
Act One: The Second Amendment Task Force (Now Streaming on Bureaucracy+)
Let’s start with the good headline.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a new DOJ pro–Second Amendment effort, with language that reads like a trailer narrated by a bald eagle wearing Oakleys.1
The pitch (in the public messaging) is simple: the DOJ is done treating gun rights like a constitutional afterthought.1
And I get it.
If you’re a normal person, you hear “Task Force” and think: action, results, and maybe a dramatic door kick accompanied by the Constitution on a clipboard.
But then the court filings walk in and ruin the party.
So what does “Task Force” mean in practice?
Based on the reporting and the litigation posture, it has looked like this:
- Public messaging about protecting gun owners, paired with ongoing defense of NFA structures and federal positions that gun-rights groups say expand government power.
- Pro-2A victories narrowed in court, as if constitutional rights are only valid for the “named plaintiffs” and anyone who paid for the premium membership tier.
- Mounting backlash from national groups arguing DOJ conduct doesn’t match the branding.
So either the Task Force is real but lives in a different dimension, or DOJ attorneys didn’t get the memo, or “multitasking” now means defending the same system you announced you’re dismantling.
In fairness, a task force could become a battering ram for rights restoration.
It could also become decorative government furniture: inspirational to look at, impossible to sit on, and always in the way when you’re carrying something heavy.
Act Two: The $0 Tax That Still Owns You
Here’s where the plot goes full cartoon.
In July 2025, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” removed the $200 NFA tax for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs, shifting it to $0 (effective later).
That $200 number wasn’t “small.”
It was designed in 1934 to be painful and exclusionary, and it became symbolic of an entire system that treats paperwork as morality and permission slips as liberty.
Congressional intent (as described in the letters reported) was that taxation and registration were linked—remove the tax, and the registration mechanism collapses for the $0-tax items.
Translation: no tax, no registry. Simple. Boring. American.
But DOJ’s posture—again, as described in the reporting—moves in the opposite direction: preserve the registration/transfer scheme anyway, even when the “tax” is now “$0.”
The $0 logic, translated:
“We aren’t charging you anything… but you still have to do the paperwork, ask permission, and remain in the database because the concept of a tax once existed in this area.”
That is not “tax law.” That is bureaucratic yoga.
Gun Owners of America warned that DOJ’s theory (as characterized in the coverage) could expand federal power dramatically if courts accept “$0 tax” as a sufficient hook for regulation—today for NFA items, tomorrow for anything else with a label and a spreadsheet row.2
If this logic stands, your rights don’t just come with conditions.
They come with updates, patches, and a “known issues” page.
Act Three: The Post Office Carry Case (Now Featuring Selective Freedom)
In late 2025, a federal court ruling held the post office carry ban unconstitutional as applied in the way it was being enforced, in the case reporting referenced as Firearms Policy Coalition Inc. v. Bondi.
Normal timeline: court rules, government complies, citizens benefit.
Modern timeline: court rules, government tries to shrink the benefit until it fits inside a thimble.
According to the reporting, DOJ sought to limit the scope of the injunction to only the named plaintiffs and verified members of certain organizations, rather than treating the ruling as meaningful relief for “peaceable citizens” generally.
Which means your constitutional protection can become a scavenger hunt.
Step 1: Win a lawsuit. Step 2: Prove you’re on the “approved list.” Step 3: Enjoy the same right other Americans thought the Bill of Rights already covered.
SAF and FPC pushed back, arguing the government was fighting to keep enforcing an unconstitutional ban against as many people as possible, and calling the “membership list” angle unworkable and wrongheaded.
This is what legal scholars call “narrow tailoring.”
This is what South Park would call “freemium liberty.”
Act Four: Congress Writes Letters While DOJ Pretends Not to See Them
At this point, Congress did the thing Congress does when it doesn’t want to do the other thing Congress could do.
It wrote letters.
Reportedly led by Sen. Steve Daines and Rep. Andrew Clyde, lawmakers sent DOJ a formal reminder: Congress intended the NFA’s registration/transfer requirements for $0-tax items to fall with the tax, and DOJ should reflect that intent in litigation.
The coverage also notes a comparison to when Congress zeroed out the ACA individual mandate penalty and DOJ declined to defend the law, suggesting DOJ can choose not to defend provisions that no longer rest on valid constitutional footing, if it wants to.
Which raises an awkward question.
If DOJ can decline to defend a law under one set of political incentives, why can’t it do the same when the incentive is… the Bill of Rights.
GOA later criticized Congress for how few lawmakers signed onto the pressure campaign, framing the problem as a shortage of backbone rather than a shortage of inbox space.
And yes, some lawmakers did sign.
Many did not.
Apparently, the “Find a Pen” Act is still stuck in committee.
When Gun-Control Groups and a Republican DOJ Start Holding Hands
If you ever needed proof that American politics has entered its experimental phase, here it is.
A DOJ defending the NFA in court… supported by Brady, Giffords, and Everytown in an amicus brief (as reported).
Yes. Those Brady. Those Giffords. That Everytown.
The holy trinity of “nobody needs that,” now offering legal support like it’s a bake sale donation.
When anti-gun organizations file briefs cheering your legal position, that is not “bipartisan.”
That is a dashboard warning light that says: CHECK ENGINE: CONSTITUTION.
Firearms News frames this alliance as a credibility problem for a purportedly pro-2A agenda, and that’s putting it politely.
Because in politics, your friends don’t just reflect your values.
They also reflect your strategy.
The “$0 Tax” Theory and the Federal Power Expansion Problem
Here’s the part that matters beyond suppressors.
It’s the theory.
According to GOA’s warning (as covered), DOJ’s posture in NFA litigation advances a broad theory of congressional authority—one that could allow regulation “far beyond anything the Framers intended,” if a court accepts it.
And that’s why gun-rights groups reacted like someone just tried to sell them a “freedom” plan with a three-year contract.
Because once the legal rationale expands, it rarely expands back.
That is the quiet danger of bureaucratic precedent.
It’s never “just this one issue.”
It becomes the template.
The “Fire Bondi” Pressure Campaign (and Why It Took Off)
By October 2025, the National Association for Gun Rights publicly called for Bondi’s removal, citing a list of actions they argue are anti–Second Amendment, including continued enforcement of certain Biden-era ATF rules and litigation positions on bans and restrictions (as reported).
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon pushed back publicly, defending Bondi as highly pro-2A and disputing the claim (as framed in the coverage) that DOJ demanded private membership lists in that context (as reported).
So here we are.
One side says: “This is the most pro-2A DOJ ever.”
The other side says: “Then why do the court filings read like gun control fan-fiction.”
And the citizen says: “Can someone please stop treating my constitutional rights like a customer support ticket.”
South Park Government Logic
Congress: “We repealed the tax.”
DOJ: “Cool. We kept the registry.”
Courts: “That seems… constitutionally weird.”
DOJ: “Yes, but what if… Commerce Clause vibes.”
Gun Owners: “That’s not how rights work.”
DOJ: “Have you tried Necessary-and-Proper Pilates.”
Brady/Giffords/Everytown: “We approve this message.”
Congress: writes letter
DOJ: files motion
Everyone else: still filling out forms
Roll credits: “Liberty will return after these messages.”
Final Thought: Liberty Doesn’t Survive on Press Releases
Gun owners aren’t asking for favors.
They’re asking for consistency.
If the Second Amendment is “not a second-class right,” then the legal posture has to match the branding.
If you remove a tax, you don’t keep the registry as a souvenir.
If you win a case, you don’t “limit the benefit” until it stops benefiting anyone who didn’t have the time to be a named plaintiff.
Because rights don’t usually die in a cinematic explosion.
They die through process.
Through delay.
Through paperwork.
Through smiling officials telling you everything is fine while stapling your freedoms to a form that says “Please initial here.”
Enemies of the Second Amendment didn’t suddenly assemble.
They were invited.
And until DOJ stops defending registries under $0 pretenses and stops narrowing victories into irrelevance, the patriotic branding won’t change the operational reality.
References
- “AG Pam Bondi Misses Second Amendment Executive Order Deadline” , The Truth About Guns.
- “Extremely Troublesome Department Of Justice Brief Draws Stark Warning From GOA” , The Truth About Guns.
- “FPC, SAF Fire Back At DOJ Move To Gut Recent Ruling Striking Down Post Office Carry Ban” , The Truth About Guns.
- “Lawmakers Send Letter To AG Bondi Urging DOJ To Stop Supporting National Firearms Act” , The Truth About Guns.
- “GOA Calls Out ‘Cowards’ In Congress For Not Supporting Letter To Bondi On NFA Repeal” , The Truth About Guns.
- “Duplicitous Bedfellows: Trump Administration and Anti-Gun Organizations” , Firearms News.
- “Gun-Rights Group Calls For Firing Of AG Bondi” , The Truth About Guns.
- “One Big Beautiful Update, Part 1” , Firearms News.
- “The One Big Betrayal in the One Big Beautiful Bill” , Firearms News.
Max Tactical Firearms, LLC is a licensed FFL and SOT dealer with a nationwide online store featuring 40,000+ products from over 500 brands. You’ll find everything from firearms and archery gear to hunting, camping, survival equipment, optics, and more.
Read the full article here
