DOJ makes welcome announcement on ongoing litigation regarding the Second Amendment

The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi appears to be taking a different direction in ongoing litigation about Second Amendment rights.

Bondi's chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, said on X that protecting Americans' Second Amendment rights is a "high priority" and that the department will be "re-evaluating some of its recent litigation positions on Second Amendment issues, including silencers."

The announcement comes after the DOJ moved to delay a ruling in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after the acting U.S. attorney argued that suppressors are not protected under the Second Amendment. It is part of the case U.S. v. George Peterson, where Peterson was convicted of possessing an unregistered suppressor.

In order to obtain a suppressor, purchases have to go through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and pay a $200 tax stamp. Suppressors are legal in most states and are used to help prevent hearing damage during recreational use of guns.

"The government now requests this Court delay its ruling on Peterson’s petition for 30 days to allow it an opportunity to further consider its position. On February 7, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights (EO 14206), directing the Attorney General to examine all executive actions to present a proposed plan to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. In implementing that order, the Department of Justice is re-evaluating its litigation positions regarding silencers," the government said in its filing.

Bondi following through on President Donald Trump's executive order is a welcome sign for gun rights advocates, who have been worried about Bondi's actions on the issue, especially regarding red-flag laws, when she was attorney general in Florida.

"To everyone who helped make a stink about the DOJ’s continuing Biden-era strategy, your pressure worked. ... All the federal government’s positions on litigation are controlled by the executive branch, which answers to YOU. That means political tactics work to control lawsuit strategies and we saw that happen over the past two weeks," said Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Association for Gun Rights' legal arm.

Hill added that while it should not have taken a pressure campaign to end Biden-era stances on firearms, it was worth it because of the DOJ's reversal.

This is over twenty years old and I only have a dead link to a Civil War discussion forum from long ago, so I am unable to credit the original author.

Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution was arguably the most sweeping and important. It is the due process of law amendment that has caused so many to our legal system. But, few know the story of the fourteenth and how the egg of "due process" was hatched.
At the Civil War's end Lincoln granted amnesty to nearly all and "with malice towards none", all the southern states were soon functioning again in a legal and proper manner. Because the war was over his emancipation proclamation was effectively ended and so the need of the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery. There were 36 states in the union and the necessary 3/4 to pass the constitutional amendment was accomplished easily when 10 of the southern states voted for ratification.
Then came the 39th congress in December of 1865. Article 1 of the constitution states that a majority of the either house can deny the seat to any member of its respective house of congress. The Senators and Representatives of the 25 northern states voted to deny seats to the newly elected congressmen from 11 southern states. This meant that the seated congress had 182 of a possible 240 representatives, and only 50 of the rightful 72 senators. There were 36 recognized states in the union. (Keep in mind that in the 38th congress the southern representatives were allowed to vote and have their state votes count in passage of the 13th amendment).
In the beginning of the 39th congress came resolution #48 which sponsored the fourteenth amendment. The amendment was especially important to northern liberals as it's privileges and immunities clause would sweep power from states and hand it to the federal government. The sponsors of the amendment needed a two-thirds majority of each house to submit the amendment to the states for ratification, and remember, the house is short 58 representatives from the southern states and senate 22 senators as well! The constitution states amendments need the vote of "two-thirds of both houses". Does this mean of the seated members or the available seats? Well, it depends on who is counting the votes. At the time there were 33 senators in favor of the resolution #48 which was, 23 short of 2/3rds of the full compliment and 1 short of being 2/3rds of the 50 seated members. Either way you count it, passage is doomed.
NO PROBLEM. Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was elected by a plurality and not a majority vote and was seated to the senate, he was against the fourteenth. A plurality was all that was needed by New Jersey law, and other states as well, however, Stockton's seat was taken from him (after being seated) by the senate majority because he had not received a majority vote and the 33 affirmative voting senators comprised a two-thirds majority of the remaining 49 seated senators. In the house there were 120 of the 182-seated members in favor of the amendment, 2 short of the necessary two-thirds.
NO PROBLEM. Because 30 members abstained, their numbers were not recognized at all, meaning only 152 votes were recognized and 120 is well over two-thirds of the number that voted yes or no. I remind you that the full house compliment was 240 members and that 120 is 1/2 of 240 not 2/3.
Hang on, we are only half way there but it gets better.
Now the amendment must be passed by three-fourths of the states and Nebraska has been admitted meaning 28 states must ratify the 14th amendment. By March, 1867 10 states said no and 17 said yes. California then took no action on the amendment, which was the same as a no vote, meaning there could be at most 26 yes votes when all the states were counted. Then, Oregon which had voted yes with the help of two legislative members later held not to be duly elected changed its vote to no when those two state representatives were replaced by two legitimate representatives, sure doom?
NO PROBLEM. The US Congress recognized the first Oregon vote and discarded the second even though two members of the Oregon state government were not legally able to vote and replaced by the state of Oregon, remember Senator Stockton of New Jersey? The US Congress unseated him (a no vote) because it questioned his validity as a Senator, but recognized the yes votes of State representative held to be illegitimate.
Now the 39th congress passes the Reconstruction Act that placed military occupation on 10 of the 11 southern states and denied the congressional seats to those states until they passed the 14th amendment. Many northern states began to have second thoughts about the manner and validity of these federal moves, after all, what can be done to one state can later be done to yours. California now took a stand and voted no on the 14th. Maryland, Ohio and New Jersey who first voted yes, changed to no. 16 of the 37 states now said no and 3/4ths or 28 were needed to win approval and there was at most only a possible 21 yes votes when all the remaining states voted.
NO PROBLEM. 6 of the southern states that originally voted against the amendment had their legislative bodies forcibly removed by the military occupation resulting from the Reconstruction Act and changed into yes votes. Recall that the 13th amendment was passed by the 38th congress with the original and proper representatives from the southern states. Those congressmen were recognized when voting yes to 13 but thrown out when voting no on 14. Now, what to do about those states that voted yes and then changed to no?
NO PROBLEM. The congressional leaders simply recognized the original yes votes and ignored the no votes, claiming the yeses were already resolved. In other words, the states that voted no and then forced to vote yes had their new votes recognized, those who voted yes then no did not. When all states had voted, congress and Secretary of State William H Seward recognized 28 affirmative votes for ratification.
This is how the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and made a part of our constitution on July 9, 1868. The Fourteenth is known as our "due process" and "equal protection of the law" amendment.

However, it's official.

[...]
And I do further certify, that the said amendment has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States.
Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-eight day of July, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, and of the independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.
[SEAL]
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.