House Democrats Scramble to Save ATF's Anti-2A Overreach

This week, a letter from House Democrats, led by Representatives Jamie Raskin and Lucy McBath, landed on the desk of U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi. The letter, disguised as a plea for “gun safety,” is a blatant attempt to pressure the Department of Justice into keeping the ATF’s overreaching regulatory policies intact. Specifically, they’re worried about President Trump’s recent executive order directing a review of all firearms-related regulations, including the ATF’s infamous frame and receiver rule.

What’s in the Letter?

The Democrats argue that the ATF’s regulations, including its crackdown on gun dealers and home gun builders, have “saved lives” and are necessary for public safety. They defend the ATF’s aggressive revocation of Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs) and claim that only a tiny percentage of dealers have lost their licenses.

However, what they’re really concerned about is Trump’s directive to reassess whether these regulations violate the Second Amendment. The letter demands answers on how Bondi will determine if any existing ATF rule infringes on constitutional rights. They also push for assurances that any rollbacks of anti-gun regulations won’t “increase violent crime” or “harm national security.” In other words, they’re trying to preemptively block any effort to restore Second Amendment rights.

Congress and the Constitution: A Reality Check

The letter claims that “Congress has a long history of passing legislation to protect Americans from violent crime while also adhering to the Second Amendment.” Sure—when Congress actually passes laws. But here’s the problem:

1. Congress can't go against the Constitution without getting an amendment—which, given the current political climate, isn't happening anytime soon (good luck with that). The Second Amendment is clear, and no amount of legislative wordplay changes the fact that shall not be infringed means exactly what it says.

2. Congress did not authorize these rules in the first place. In fact, when Biden stood on the White House lawn ranting about so-called “ghost guns,” he outright admitted that he was pushing the ATF’s frame and receiver rule precisely because Congress wouldn’t act. Translation? These rules are pure executive overreach—not laws passed by Congress.

Oregon Joins the Fight to Save Biden’s Gun Control

While the Biden administration’s gun control agenda faces an existential threat, anti-gun states are doing everything they can to keep it alive. Oregon recently joined a multi-state coalition defending two key gun regulations that are under fire in federal court: the ATF’s forced reset trigger ban and its expansion of background check requirements.

The first lawsuit challenges the ATF’s classification of forced reset triggers as machine guns, a rule that was already struck down by a federal judge in 2024. The Biden administration appealed the decision, and now Oregon and its allies are trying to argue that without federal enforcement, they’ll have to spend more state resources enforcing their own restrictive gun laws. In other words, they don’t want to take responsibility for the laws they claim to support.

The second lawsuit targets the ATF’s overreach in mandating background checks for private gun sales. While the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act passed in 2022, it did not authorize the ATF to require universal background checks. The ATF took it upon itself to “interpret” the law in a way that gives the federal government more control over gun transactions than Congress ever approved.

This desperate legal maneuvering comes just as Trump’s executive order directs Attorney General Bondi to review all federal agency actions that may infringe on the Second Amendment. If Trump follows through and the ATF’s unconstitutional gun rules are struck down, Oregon and its allies will be left scrambling.

What This Means for the ATF’s Frame and Receiver Rule

For those following the battle over the ATF’s frame and receiver rule, this could be huge. The rule, which sought to redefine what constitutes a firearm under federal law, has been at the center of lawsuits (like VanDerStok v. Garland) challenging the ATF’s authority to regulate unfinished frames and receivers.

If Bondi follows through with an honest review of the ATF’s overreach, the frame and receiver rule could be on the chopping block. That would be a major win for home builders, 80% lowers, and anyone who believes the ATF shouldn’t have the power to rewrite laws Congress never passed.

Wrong Analogies and Misleading Arguments

One of the more absurd points in the letter claims that “more gun dealers exist today than locations of Starbucks, McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, Burger King, Subway, and Chick-fil-A combined.”

This is a textbook example of a misleading comparison. If selling a burger required a government-issued license, background checks, and regulatory inspections, the number of licensed burger sellers would skyrocket overnight. The real takeaway here isn’t that gun dealers are everywhere, it’s that the federal government requires licensing for Americans to exercise a constitutional right, while anyone can freely open a coffee shop or a sandwich stand.

Democrats Are on the Defensive—And That’s a Good Sign

The fact that anti-gun lawmakers are scrambling to keep these rules in place tells us one thing: They’re scared. They know that with Trump’s executive order in play, the ATF’s unconstitutional policies might not survive much longer.

This is exactly why the fight isn’t over. The pressure to roll back the ATF’s abuse of power is building, and this letter is proof that gun control advocates see the writing on the wall. But they won’t go down without a fight. We need to keep pushing to ensure that the ATF’s frame and receiver rule is fully repealed and that Second Amendment rights are restored.