Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
In a new video, Colion Noir is pushing back hard on claims that the Department of Justice is “weaponizing” the Second Amendment.
The controversy stems from reports that the DOJ has moved gun rights enforcement into its Civil Rights Division and is asking the Supreme Court to review Hawaii’s restrictive gun laws. Critics argue it’s a calculated strategy to dismantle state-level gun regulations nationwide. Noir sees it differently.
“Trump is building a federal enforcement machine to protect a constitutional right,” Noir says. “Oh no, the horror.”
SEE ALSO: Sig P211 GTO Review – Flat, Fast, Relentless
He frames the move not as radical, but logical. A civil right, he argues, is an individual right protected from government interference and enforced through the courts. Voting rights. Free speech. Equal protection. So why, he asks, should the Second Amendment be treated differently?
“You don’t get to scream civil rights when it’s voting… or speech… but when it’s the Second Amendment, suddenly it’s a conspiracy,” Noir says. “No, it’s consistency.”
The legal backdrop is the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that modern gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
According to Noir, that ruling didn’t “blow up gun safety laws,” as critics claim. It reinforced that states can’t deny carry rights based on subjective or arbitrary standards.
He zeroes in on Hawaii as a test case, arguing that while some states technically allow concealed carry, in practice they denied most applicants before Bruen. If the Supreme Court sides with the DOJ, Noir says, other restrictive states could face similar scrutiny.
SEE ALSO: Ruger American Gen II Predator Review That Hits Sub MOA
He also calls out what he sees as ideological inconsistency. Pointing to arguments over voter ID versus multi-layered licensing schemes for carrying a firearm.
“Breuen didn’t say no gun laws,” Noir says. “It said if you’re going to restrict a right, you need historical grounding. You can’t just invent modern excuses to deny people their rights.”
Critics warn that this approach could nationalize concealed carry standards without Congress. Supporters say it’s simply enforcing a constitutional guarantee that already exists.
What say you?
Is the DOJ elevating the Second Amendment to its rightful place among protected civil rights? Or is this, as critics argue, a strategic attempt to federalize gun policy through the courts?
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
Our “Civil Rights” are enumerated in the “Bill of Rights.” The FIRST 9 Amendments. You can’t pick and choose which of these rights are protected rights. Either they ALL are or NONE of them are. You want to repeal the Second Amendment? You may as well repeal the FIRST!
She’s not even worth a comment… Moving on
there is a reason for the 2A, we drove out british rule/occupation with an armed population and it was deemed so important that they made it the second amendment not the 4th or 11th or put it last.
Oh, paul, but they did make it the 4th! XD
There were initially 12 articles in what became the Bill of Rights. The first two were not initially ratified – the first had to do with the apportionment of representatives in the House of Representatives, now long defunct, and the second article prohibited Congress from raising their own salaries between elections. This second article was ratified as the 27th Amendment in the early 90s (‘93?). The First Amendment is Article Three, the Second Amendment is Article Four, the Third Amendment is Article Five and so on.
Maybe Articles are metric Amendments? It is the Second Amendment in the US but the Fourth Article in the UK? :þ
so what didn’t happen is more important than what is…….a screwed up way of looking at things.
There is strong Historical evidence that supports the fact that 2A was actually done to convince the individual States that joining the Federal Government would be to their advantage and they promised the States they had the right to have their own independent Militias (In modern times taken away from them) so they could murder slaves if there was a slave revolt which was going on in Haiti at the time and creating mass panic in America as the writings of Jefferson and Madison so clearly reveal . In short it was never about the “individual’s right” to bear arms and in fact some States even confiscated arms from people who did not tow their “party line” proving how little they thought about the individual’s right to own arms.
In the book by Carol Anderson “The Second” she gives a lot of historical background as to what was really going on during the Revolution including the facts that 2/3 of the American people were either against a revolution or sitting on the sidelines and waiting it out to see which group would annihilate the other. In fact out of a very small population of only 2 million White people up to as many as 150,000 Whites left America for Canada after the war and while it was going on helped and supported the British against the totally incompetent and arrogant George Washington who without the help and advice of the professional and modern equipped French Army would have been caught and hug by his dirty balls. American Loyalists later in time fought against the White U.S. American invaders (war of 1812) that invaded Canada and then tried to make Canada a U.S. Slave State.
In reality going to war with Britain was the worst mistake ever to befall the American people because they ended up losing the right to a Parliamentary Government with multiple political parties and true Democracy for the people. We ended up with a thoroughly corrupt Oligarchy that was composed of the super rich and was for the super rich and against the working man and it remains so to this very day.
The U.S. Supreme Court for most of its History was very wary and very hostile towards the Second Amendment as they viewed 2A as a threat to their absolute power over everyone and they consistently refused to rule on exactly what rights Americans had under 2A. Even the much ballyhooed Scalia declaration stated that the Courts had the right to “regulate firearms” which was nothing more than slick disingenuous double talk for “restrict or ban gun ownership.
It all boils down to the absolute power of the Supreme Court which is appointed for life and who always plays politicas according to which party is in power and they have always made a complete mockery of the entire Constitution. The Constitution means less to the Supreme Court than their rolls of toilet paper. The crowning insult to the American people was when Trump’s thoroughly corrupt Supreme Court declared Trump “King” and untouchable for any crimes while in power. It was the straw the broke the Camel’s back because now the Court has lost all respect and all credibility with the American people. I am sure Putin was both cheering the Court’s decision and rolling in the isles with maniacal laughter. Trump now has his wish as he has achieved a Putin style slave State which mirrors Putin’s slave State of Russia. Show me the difference, you cannot because there is no difference.
just some more liberal AI nonsense, revisionist history is made up crap to push an agenda!
Not even I believe that, dacian.
Anderson and Bogus make very strained connections to the 2A and slavery.
Nothing more than revisionist history Dacian.
Read the damn book before you go popping off about it,
I have. My statement statement stands.
Maybe you should read real history and not some uneducated poorly researched crap.