In the last 17 months, the Trump administration has delivered win after win for the nation’s most ardent gun-rights advocacy groups, chipping away at dozens of federal regulations. While many of these efforts target regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — the law enforcement agency within the Justice Department tasked with regulating the nation’s millions of firearms — the administration’s work stretches across the executive branch.
Supporters of tighter gun restrictions have pilloried the Trump administration, saying officials are acting recklessly and could endanger the public with a wholesale rollback of regulations. But gun rights advocates who portrayed the Biden administration as trampling on the Second Amendment have praised the current administration’s actions as a needed corrective.
Trump vowed on the campaign trail to be a pro-Second Amendment president and pledged that, under his leadership, “no one will lay a finger on your firearms.” He said he would roll back Biden-era ATF regulations and received the backing of the big gun rights groups.
Critics, however, have said that the Trump’s administration’s push to unwind gun regulations contradicts the president’s tough-on-crime political agenda. And, they say, the efforts could make it easier for potentially dangerous people to access firearms. …
[ATF general counsel Robert] Leider has been working on the regulations for more than a year. The plan had been to announce them July 4, 2025, at an Independence Day celebration, The Post previously reported.
But [Acting Attorney General Todd] Blanche has said the proposed changes took longer than expected to complete because lawyers had to scrupulously review them to ensure they passed legal muster. Justice Department officials expect them to face court challenges.
Because the Trump administration is making these changes through the regulatory process — and not by legislation passed in Congress and signed into law — the next administration could reinstate the scrapped rules. The goal, Justice Department officials said, is to ensure that the regulations do not run afoul of laws so that they can remain intact.
“We were very careful on how we did the rules,” Leider said. “Congress has decided that certain people cannot be trusted with firearms. ATF has to enforce those congressional judgments. It is not the agency’s job to amend Congress’s criteria in an effort to predict who will become violent.”
— Perry Stein in Inside the Trump administration’s rapid rollback of gun regulations
“Critics, however, have said that the Trump’s administration’s push to unwind gun regulations contradicts the president’s tough-on-crime political agenda. And, they say, the efforts could make it easier for potentially dangerous people to access firearms. …”
It was always a lie that such ‘efforts’ would make it somehow “easier for potentially dangerous people to access firearms”.
It is a lie because people who are “potentially dangerous” will become dangerous if they so choose to do so and if they can’t get a firearm they will just use something else including hands/feet. It makes zero sense to impose regulation and law and rules on law abiding people because there might be or is someone who is ‘potentially dangerous’. Its a stupid concept, it hits emotionally for some people but in reality its a false logic lie.
“potentially dangerous” people have existed for all of human history – and imposing regulation and law and rules on the rest of society has never, not one time, ever, stopped them from being “potentially dangerous”… and never, not one time, has such regulation and law and rules ever stopped a “potentially dangerous” person from enacting that danger upon others if they made the choice to do so. These morons seem to think they can ‘regulation and law and rules’ away the free will of “potentially dangerous” people, that some way or another imposing such regulation and law and rules on the whole of society that “potentially dangerous” people will cease to exist.
Guns do not make “potentially dangerous” people enact their danger, its the “potentially dangerous” person free will choice that enacts that danger upon others. “potentially dangerous” people do not suddenly stop being “potentially dangerous” or cease to exist if they can not get a gun or regulation and law and rules exist.
And… its not contradicting “the president’s tough-on-crime political agenda.”
Protecting and preserving constitutional rights is a constitutionally ‘mandated’ function of government and the office of President. The president even swears to it in the oath of office with the part of “…and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”…”. ‘We the people’, and the law and SCOTUS, as a country, have already decided that criminals and law abiding people are two separate groups when it comes to the second amendment. Protecting and preserving the constitutional right of the second amendment for law abiding people is a separate thing from being “tough-on-crime” – protecting and preserving the constitutional right of the second amendment for law abiding people does not contradict the Presidents tough-on-crime political agenda. And the President is obligated to do both by constitution and oath and duty.