While the reaction from gun prohibition lobbying groups to President Donald Trump’s executive order to protect the Second Amendment was predictable fury, grassroots gun rights activists in the Pacific Northwest—where Democrats are in control—expect them to “double-down” in retaliation.
The question was raised on Facebook, and remarks posted in response to this question—As Trump dismantles Biden’s gun control agenda, will Washington Democrats double down out of spite?—tell the tale. More about this in a minute.
Trump’s 451-word executive order met with immediate resistance from gun control groups, exemplified by Common Dreams, “An executive order issued Friday by President Donald Trump that aims to rollback gun control measures instituted by his predecessor received a swift rebuke from critics who said the order should be seen as a giveaway to the profit-hungry gun industry at the expense of a society ruthlessly harmed by gun violence year after year after year.”
Trump’s order covers all actions during the period from January 2021 through January 2025 focusing on rules promulgated by the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during that time period. It also directs the Attorney General to review reports and related documents issued by the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which President Trump has abolished.
“Joe Biden and Kamala Harris waged war on American gun owners and the Second Amendment for four long years,” Alan Gottlieb at the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms recalled, “treating the right to keep and bear arms like a government-regulated privilege. That ended January 20, and we are looking ahead to actions by the Trump administration which will reverse Biden’s policies and correct the harm he has done.”
But it could take some time to reverse what Biden did over the course of four years. And here’s a fear of the gun ban crowd acknowledged by Chip Brownlee, writing at The Trace: “If the Justice Department declines to defend the current federal laws in court, it would significantly raise the chances of them being ruled unconstitutional.”
Question: If something actually is unconstitutional, why should the Justice Department defend it in court? After all, isn’t that the rationale behind language in the Bruen ruling which did away with “means-end scrutiny,” which essentially gave preference to a “government interest” over a constitutionally-enumerated fundamental right?
The “plan of action” contained in the president’s executive order is plainly at odds with what the gun prohibition lobby seems to appreciate about the Biden administration’s gun control actions.
“(a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
“(b) In developing such proposed plan of action, the Attorney General shall review, at a minimum:
(i) All Presidential and agencies’ actions from January 2021 through January 2025 that purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens…”
This appears to be what anti-gunners fear most; the revelation that Biden-era “gun safety” efforts were actually unconstitutional. Something determined by the courts to violate constitutional rights is pretty difficult to defend.
Meanwhile, concerns expressed by Northwest grassroots activists should not be overlooked or dismissed as so much paranoia. Out in Washington state, gun owners consider themselves “behind enemy lines” and are currently battling what Democrats in Olympia—the state capital—are trying to do. As the saying goes, It’s not really paranoia if “they” actually are out to get you.
Under consideration right now are House Bills 1132, 1152 and 1163 all adding new restrictions on gun owners. They all passed out of committee on 8-5 party-line votes. All three bills share many of the same sponsors, all Democrats.
SHB 1132 (Substitute House Bill) claims to “enhance public safety by limiting bulk purchases and transfers of firearms and ammunition.” It places a limit of one firearm purchase per month, and limits gun owners to purchasing a maximum of 1,000 rounds of ammunition regardless of caliber or gauge in a 30-day period, except for .50-caliber ammunition, which is limited to 100 rounds per month.
HB 1153 mandates so-called “secure storage” of firearms when not in use. It ratchets down on leaving firearms in vehicles, with some exceptions, and in residences. Violators would be subject to fines of up to $1,000. It isn’t clear how the requirement would be enforced.
SHB 1163 (Substitute House Bill) creates a permit-to-purchase requirement, requiring proof of training to include a live-fire exercise, and it would also apply to obtaining a concealed pistol license.
Responding to the original question above, more than three dozen Washington gun owners have replied so far.
Says respondent Bob Smith: “Democrats in Washington are out to destroy conservatives in general. My personal experience.”
Mike Wasson predicted Massachusetts Democrats will double down.
Another man, Lee James Thieman, observed, “Spite is the only motivation for anything they do.”
Well-known Second Amendment activist Daniel G. Mitchell observed, “They can’t stand freedom and will do anything to resist it.”
