This past weekend, President Trump made a monumental move by signing an executive order directing the Attorney General to review all unconstitutional actions President Biden took against the Second Amendment. While groups such as Gun Owners of America and the National Association of Gun Rights are hailing this as a great move in the struggle to restore Second Amendment freedoms, no one seems to be asking the tough questions that need to be asked. For instance, as Florida’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi helped enact the state’s red flag laws. Otherwise known as extreme risk protection orders, these laws not only violate the Second Amendment but the Fourth and Fifth as well. Is she going to be reviewing the unconstitutionality of the laws she enacted? The executive order only covers the past four years, and the actions taken by Biden, so that is unlikely. Another point to consider is the fact that Trump’s bump stock ban, while overturned by the court, set the precedent for how the ATF began redefining legislation on its terms. Will the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act — which contains language for a national red flag law — be reviewed and repealed? Whether people like it or not, President Trump accomplished more in terms of gun control in his first term than Obama did in eight years. While this executive order sounds great on paper, executive orders are not law and can generally be undone with another executive order.

In his four-year term, President Biden took twenty-one actions against the Second Amendment, very few of which had any direct impact on a person’s ability to acquire a firearm. The most troubling was the zero-tolerance policy aimed at Federal Fire Arms Licensees’. The ATF made big news by shutting down any FFL that was in any way, shape, or form, out of compliance with federal law. Any mistake was seen as an excuse to revoke the dealer’s license and shut the store down. As his administration came to an end, Biden officially pulled the plug on this rule, ending the zero-tolerance program. While it has ended on paper, people in the gun industry say the program is still alive and well. The question is; will a program that exists to ensure federal firearm dealers remain compliant with federal law, be deemed unconstitutional, or will it be viewed as a key role the agency plays? Another one of Biden’s orders revolves around the issue of who can be considered a gun dealer. The problem with this is that the ATF did this the right way, according to law, and followed the text of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Unlike other actions taken by ATF, this has a precedent written in law. Any person can be considered to be “in the business” if the primary objective is to earn a profit. There was also the pistol brace rule which has been overturned by the courts. Most of Biden’s executive orders — aside from these few — revolve around funding programs that are aimed at reducing violence. It is illegal to use taxpayer dollars to push gun control initiatives, however, repealing these orders will do little to advance Second Amendment rights and can be easily reinstated with the next Democrat president. The bigger question is; will an Attorney General who is known to favor red flag laws see these orders as being unconstitutional? Perhaps she will. Maybe she will advocate for repealing the NFA.

President Trump, during his first term, was an advocate for “taking your guns first and going to court later,” and had directed William Barr to move forward with efforts to get states to enact red flag laws. This was a policy that Biden continued but didn’t start. To this day, President Trump has not commented on, nor rescinded his position on this issue. His appointment of Pam Bondi was an alarming development as many gun rights advocates began raising the alarm over her support for red flag laws. Florida was one of the several states to enact such legislation after Trump gave Barr the green light to push the issue. The most troubling aspect of red flag laws is the failure of most people to see the danger they pose. While there are roughly one hundred million gun owners in the country, not all of them are die-hard Second Amendment supporters. Many people can be swayed into accepting laws that allegedly disarm people who have been deemed dangerous, without considering the deeper constitutional issues involved. Again, the question must be asked. Will the Trump administration review its record on advancing gun control and undo the policies it set in motion? It’s possible. Maybe he will abolish the ATF and dictate that machine guns are now legal for everyone. Another question that must be considered, considering The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Rahimi case, is whether or not red flag laws themselves will be seen as unconstitutional. The court simply ruled that a person can be disarmed if a court had found them to be a credible threat to themselves or others. They followed the standards set by Bruen, and cited relevant laws dating back to the founding. What the court did not address in this case, is the process by which an individual is found to be a credible threat. What constitutes due process in this instance?

The advancements in gun control during the first Trump administration didn’t stop with the advocating for red flag laws. The ATF’s illegal registry can be tied to Trump’s first term, as there were some big changes made to ATF Form 4473. This is the background check form required to be completed with every firearm purchase from an FFL. While it is commonly known that this form undergoes some changes every three or four years, these changes were significant, as they enabled the ATF to quickly connect a particular weapon with the purchaser as the weapon’s serial number and purchaser’s name now appeared on the front page. This is a direct violation of federal law. This was a rule enacted by the ATF, and not directed by Trump himself, however, it was not stopped by his administration and went into effect under his watch. The question must be asked; will this change come under the scrutiny of the newly appointed attorney general, who is already known for being an advocate of not only red flag laws but enhanced background checks as well? When considering the answer to this question keep in mind that the executive order covers actions taken by Biden during his four-year term only.

Who knows what will come of this executive order? Perhaps it will undo decades of unconstitutional gun control and restore the Second Amendment freedoms that should have never been taken from the people in the first place. There will be some good things that come from it for sure. The problem, however, is the same one that has been plaguing the conservative movement since the first Trump administration. Very few people are asking any questions. Very few people are raising an eyebrow. Like everything else that Trump has done, or is doing, this executive order is being presented to the public as the greatest thing ever. Most people, when seeing it in the news, will just follow along and not consider any of the points or questions posed in this article. Truthfully, it is an empty action that is meant to do little more than solidify a false perception. Conservatives argue all the time, and rightfully so, that executive orders are not law. They are not. Biden knew just as any other president does, that he can not sign an executive order banning guns. Any true action that restores the Second Amendment must be taken on the legislative level. Until laws like the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act are repealed, nothing major will change. Even when things change on paper, they don’t really change. Again, the question must be asked. What actions will an attorney general who favors red flag laws, enhanced background checks, and age limits for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle, find unconstitutional?

Article posted with permission from David Risselada