Trump DOJ Admits Handgun Ban Is Unconstitutional, Still Fights Gun Owners in Court
The Trump administration has admitted that the federal government cannot constitutionally prohibit licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20. Yet the Department of Justice is still fighting in federal court to prevent gun-rights organizations from securing lasting judicial protection against the very same unconstitutional law.
On November 4, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a reply brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in FPC v. ATF, formerly Reese v. ATF. The filing challenges DOJ’s attempt to avoid further judicial relief nearly six years after FPC, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Louisiana Shooting Association first challenged the federal handgun purchase restrictions.
The plaintiffs have already won the constitutional argument. Now they are fighting to ensure that victory actually protects the people whose rights were violated.
DOJ Admits the Federal Handgun Ban Violates the Second Amendment
In January 2025, the Fifth Circuit ruled that federal restrictions prohibiting federally licensed dealers from selling handguns and handgun ammunition to adults ages 18 to 20 violated the Second Amendment. The decision represented a significant victory for young Americans who enjoy the same constitutional rights as other adults but have been denied access to the ordinary commercial handgun market.
On September 17, 2026, the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion agreeing that the restrictions were unconstitutional. The DOJ acknowledged that these adults are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment and that the government could not justify the prohibition under the Supreme Court’s historical-tradition standard.
But rather than agree to the broader judicial relief sought by the organizations that successfully challenged the law, the Justice Department now argues that its change in legal position makes the remaining lawsuit moot. Essentially, DOJ maintains that because the administration no longer considers the restrictions enforceable, a broader court order is unnecessary.
A Legal Opinion Is Not a Permanent Court Order
FPC rejects that argument because the federal handgun restrictions remain on the books. Congress has not repealed them, and DOJ’s legal opinion does not permanently prohibit their enforcement. A future administration could reverse the current interpretation and resume enforcing the same restrictions against another generation of young Americans.
FPC argues that the government cannot escape constitutional litigation merely by voluntarily changing its position while leaving the challenged law intact. The organization also maintains that DOJ has failed to demonstrate that ATF has implemented the policy change in a way that removes the possibility of future enforcement.
“The federal government lost on the Second Amendment. Now the Trump DOJ admits its handgun ban is unconstitutional, yet it’s still fighting to deny FPC and our members the full benefit of our victory,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.
“It’s great that the DOJ is finally admitting that this immoral gun ban is unconstitutional, but an opinion from some government lawyers is not a repeal of the law and it’s not an enforceable court order,” Combs added.
The distinction matters. Constitutional rights should not depend on the political preferences of whoever occupies the White House. An administration’s promise not to enforce an unconstitutional restriction is no substitute for an enforceable judicial order protecting the Americans affected by it.
FPC Challenges DOJ’s Attempt to Limit Nationwide Relief
The Justice Department is also opposing FPC’s effort to expand the injunction entered following its Fifth Circuit victory. The district court limited relief geographically to the Fifth Circuit and restricted protection to individuals who were already members of the plaintiff organizations when judgment was entered.
FPC argues that those limitations improperly exclude affected members who live elsewhere in the country or joined the organizations after the judgment. DOJ relies partly on the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, but FPC maintains that the government is confusing a universal injunction protecting everyone with relief protecting the actual members of organizations that successfully challenged an unconstitutional law.
The consequences are particularly apparent in this case. FPC filed the lawsuit in November 2020, nearly six years ago. During that time, multiple generations of 18-to-20-year-olds have aged out of the federal restrictions. Under DOJ’s position, newly affected adults could be denied protection simply because they were not members when the district court entered judgment.
Such a limitation threatens to force gun-rights organizations into repeated lawsuits against restrictions that courts have already determined violate the Constitution. Rather than delivering meaningful protection, successful Second Amendment litigation could become an endless cycle of legal challenges as new members turn 18 or join organizations fighting for their rights.
Gun Rights Cannot Depend on Who Controls Washington
The dispute raises a larger issue about how constitutional victories are enforced. If the government can avoid lasting judicial relief simply by announcing a temporary change in enforcement policy, the protections secured through years of litigation become vulnerable to the next administration’s political priorities.
The Trump DOJ deserves credit for acknowledging that the federal handgun sales restrictions violate the Second Amendment. But that acknowledgment means little if the administration continues fighting to prevent gun owners from obtaining the full protection of a court order.
FPC is asking the Fifth Circuit to reject DOJ’s mootness argument, reverse the district court’s narrow injunction, and direct the entry of judgment protecting affected members of the plaintiff organizations nationwide.
The government has already lost the constitutional argument. It should not take another round of litigation to make that victory meaningful. The Second Amendment is not a temporary privilege granted by presidential administrations, and Americans should not have to rely on promises from Washington to exercise rights the Constitution already guarantees.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.