In layman’s terms: The Bondi DOJ says a recent pro-Second Amendment court decision should be limited to cover only those who are members of the gun rights groups named in the lawsuit.
Despite wanting to be viewed as “the most pro-2A AG in US history,” the Bondi Justice Department keeps delivering a mixed bag when it comes to legal actions that relate to the Second Amendment and individual rights.
Most recently, the Bondi DOJ submitted a brief asking a court to limit the injunction against an unconstitutional law to only those members of the organizational plaintiffs in the suit. Or, in other words, the DOJ doesn’t want Americans at large to benefit from this victory, only those named in the case – hardly a pro-Second Amendment position.
We reported earlier this month about the victory in the case against the DOJ regarding the unconstitutional ban on concealed carry at U.S. Post Offices, in the case of Firearms Policy Coalition v. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
On October 28, the Bondi Justice Department submitted a motion to the court to clarify or modify the judgment, stating, in essence, that they couldn’t possibly know who the injunction applied to because the gun rights groups have private membership lists:
Defendant does not know to whom the injunction applies because membership information is exclusively within the possession and control of the organizational plaintiffs, who do not want to share it with the federal government.
Readers of this site will know that we covered the controversy when the Bondi Justice Department previously asked the court to force gun rights groups to give up their membership lists, and then quickly backtracked amidst public pressure and a strong response from gun rights groups.
Further proof that the Bondi Justice Department is unsupportive of Second Amendment rights at large is the direct statement asking the court to limit the injunction to only those people who were members of the gun rights groups named in the case when it was filed:
Moreover, this court should clarify that its permanent relief applies only to those (whether identified or not) who were members of the organizational plaintiffs when the operative complaint was filed (i.e., when standing is determined).
The 16-page brief is signed by Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division.
The DOJ has been largely inconsistent in Second Amendment cases, as we have tracked rigorously. In some cases, it has denied its opportunity to appeal pro-Second Amendment victories, and in others, such as this case, it has pressed to limit those victories. Only Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, has an unspotted track record of maintaining a fully pro-Second Amendment position in all briefs and oral arguments.
