Who's Really in Charge at the DOJ?

There is an open revolt currently taking place at the Department of Justice (DOJ), as Biden-era deep state holdovers are ramping up their insubordination campaign against Attorney General Pam Bondi and President Trump. This rebellion follows a growing pattern within the DOJ. Just last month, acting U.S. Attorney Michael Simpson argued in United States v. George Peterson that the Second Amendment did not protect suppressors, only to be sent back with his tail between his legs to request a 30-day delay in the court’s ruling so the government may “further consider its position.”  

Now, it seems another acting U.S. Attorney, Matthew Podolsky, is continuing the subversive charge, aided by the United States Supreme Court's irresponsible handling of Bondi v. VanDerStok. I broke that decision down in a recent article, Understanding The Bondi v. VanDerStok Decision, where I point out that the Supreme Court’s proclivity to kick the Second Amendment can down the road would ultimately lead to a continuing onslaught of taxpayer-funded litigation and abuse of regulatory authority by rogue elements in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the DOJ. 

It didn’t take long to prove the assertion. Podolsky has teamed up with New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has been referred for federal criminal prosecution connected to mortgage fraud allegations in Virginia and New York. This insurgency involves the retroactive application of VanDerStok being used to persecute firearms dealers Brownells, Primary Arms, 80% Arms, Rainier Arms, and the Glockstore for selling 80% build kits back in 2016, despite ATF approval of the kits at that time. 

As if on cue, online rumor mills have begun circulating stories about internal DOJ discussions prohibiting U.S. Attorneys from participating in these types of actions. Is there some truth to this? It’s possible, but President Trump’s ability to fire insubordinate underlings at the drop of a hat is well established, and last time I checked, Michael Simpson still has his job. 

It’s important to note that the DOJ just dropped a federal National Firearms Act (NFA charge in the controversial United States v. Taylor Taranto case, in which the defendant was accused of possessing an unregistered Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) after being found with a CZ Scorpion pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace. The reversal, however, only came after immense pressure from the Second Amendment community and pro-gun advocates. 

While it’s easy to call out pro-Second Amendment actions and initiatives currently underway, it can be more difficult to identify whether we’re receiving just enough crumbs to remain hopefully satiated or feasting on an appetizer while the steak is seared to perfection. Could the ATF and DOJ announce that they are vacating the frame or receiver rule? They absolutely could, and given the negative criticism following the VanDerStok ruling, one might question why it’s taking so long. Let’s be honest for the sake of transparency. The DOJ is well aware of legislative and regulatory violations of the Second Amendment on both the federal and state levels, causing me to question why such public outcry is necessary before they take action to reverse even themselves. 

Take the 1989 assault weapon importation ban, for example. The Bush administration used this provision to ban the importation of numerous semiautomatic rifles based on “military-style features.” The abject absurdity of the ban makes itself clear in the fact that these same rifles with the exact same features become perfectly legal (on a federal level) when manufactured within the United States, shuttering competition and, consequently, innovation in the market. The ban, however, is an administrative action taken by the executive branch directing ATF to declare these firearms as “non-sporting” per the 1968 GCA, not a law enacted by Congress. So, why has the Trump administration not ordered the DOJ to reverse this policy? If the goal truly exists to restore the Second Amendment, why not start with that which you directly preside over?

Along these lines, why not a thorough house cleaning to rid the Justice Department of holdover vermin pushing their own agendas in open defiance of what the DOJ and the current administration claim is an effort to restore and defend the Second Amendment? And what is empowering these supposedly rogue U.S. Attorneys to act out against alleged instructions coming from the Oval Office and the office of the Attorney General? 

While these questions remain difficult to answer with any verifiable certainty, they raise concerns about whether the administration is providing conservative gun owners with the minimum necessary to retain their support. Midterms may seem a ways off, but they’re always around the corner. Unless meaningful legislation is on the agenda between now and then, we risk having the scraps we’ve been given taken by the flick of a pen with a future administration and DOJ officials. In the meantime, clamping down on personnel and sending rogue elements to the unemployment line would bolster the mission that the Trump administration and Pam Bondi claim commitment to. 

Don’t take my tone as a lack of appreciation for what has been done. Instead, understand that it comes in response to a steadfast personal obligation to defend the Constitutional right of all Americans to bear arms. As I approach half a century on God’s green earth, I’ve been privy to my fair share of gamesmanship and the ugly side of what is most often a disingenuous power grab or political maneuvering versus an authentic reverence for the Founding values and principles of our nation.

Darwin Nercesian is a long-time gun rights advocate and shooter of targets far, far away. As a News Field Editor at Firearms News, Darwin writes about the Second Amendment, firearms, and related gear. Follow him on Instagram, X, and YouTube @DTOE_Official.

---