DOJ Creates Second Amendment Section, But Still Defends Dubious Gun Laws

This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult with a qualified attorney regarding specific legal questions.

Why it matters: For the first time ever, the federal government has a unit specifically dedicated to protecting gun rights—but they're still defending laws that strip those same rights from millions of Americans over nonsense like bad checks and food stamp fraud.

The Department of Justice just established a "Second Amendment Section" within its Civil Rights Division. Sounds great on paper, but here's the catch—while one part of DOJ promises to fight for your gun rights, another part keeps defending federal laws that take them away for ridiculous reasons.

What the New Unit Actually Does

The legal reality: Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon says this section will challenge state roadblocks like multi-thousand-dollar concealed carry permits and unreasonably long delays. They're also targeting state "assault weapon" bans that recent Supreme Court precedent suggests are unconstitutional.

The mission statement talks about protecting "the natural firearm rights of law-abiding American citizens." That qualifier—"law-abiding"—isn't in the Second Amendment, and it's causing real problems for real people.

The "Law-Abiding" Trap

Here's where things get stupid. Federal law 18 USC 922(g)(1) strips your gun rights if you've been convicted of any crime that could have gotten you more than a year in prison—even if you never served a day.

Take Bryan Range from Pennsylvania. Guy fraudulently got $2,458 in food stamps, pled guilty to a state misdemeanor, paid restitution, got a $100 fine and probation. But because Pennsylvania theoretically allowed up to five years for that offense, Range lost his Second Amendment rights for nearly 30 years.

Between the lines: The government can basically decide who counts as "the people" in "the right of the people" by slapping whatever penalty they want on any crime—even if they never actually impose harsh sentences.

The Third Circuit finally ruled in 2023 that stripping Range's rights was unconstitutional. Judge Thomas Hardiman nailed it: allowing the government to exclude people from Second Amendment protection gives "legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label."

Courts Are Split on This Mess

The legal reality: Since the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision said gun laws must be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," the circuit courts can't agree on Section 922(g)(1):

• Seven circuits still uphold the law across the board
• Four circuits (Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh) have ruled it unconstitutional for nonviolent offenses

The split is getting wider, which usually means the Supreme Court will eventually have to step in.

The DOJ's Ridiculous Double Standard

Here's the kicker—while the new Second Amendment Section promises to protect gun rights, other DOJ lawyers are still in court defending Section 922(g)(1). They're even fighting a Supreme Court petition from Melynda Vincent, a Utah social worker who lost her gun rights over a bad check from 17 years ago.

What this means for you: The same Justice Department that says it's protecting your gun rights is defending a law that would bar Trump himself from owning firearms due to his New York felony convictions for falsifying business records. Let that sink in.

The Real Impact

The bottom line: This new section could be huge for gun owners stuck in restrictive states. Finally, someone with federal resources might challenge those expensive permit schemes in New York or California's feature bans that make no sense.

But don't expect help if you've got any kind of criminal record—even for stuff that wouldn't get you a weekend in county today. The section's focus on "law-abiding" citizens means millions of Americans who made minor mistakes decades ago are still out of luck.

What's next: The real test is whether DOJ can figure out if it's pro-gun or anti-gun. Right now, it's both, which helps nobody except lawyers billing hours on both sides of these cases.

The contradiction isn't just embarrassing—it undermines the constitutional principles this new section claims to protect. You can't credibly defend the Second Amendment while simultaneously arguing that a bad check conviction strips someone of constitutional rights for life.

---

Read the original article in The Handbook | By Steve Duskett

---

Join the Discussion

Do you think the new DOJ Second Amendment Section will actually make a difference if they're still defending federal laws that keep people convicted of nonviolent offenses from owning guns?