Washington Gun Law President William Kirk, in his latest video, discussed what Donald Trump’s potential return to the presidency in January 2025 could mean for Second Amendment rights.
Kirk outlined what changes Trump could implement immediately, what might take longer, and what is unlikely to occur during his next administration.
“There are some things that can fix right away, but there are other things that are going to be kind of like turning around an aircraft carrier,” Kirk explained.
Immediate Changes Under Trump
Kirk highlighted actions Trump could take as soon as he steps back into the Oval Office. “Number one, [Trump] could fire Steve Dettelbach. I believe he will fire Steve Dettelbach,” Kirk said, referring to the current ATF director.
He criticized Dettelbach’s role in implementing controversial regulations, such as the pistol brace rule and zero-tolerance policies on Federal Firearms Licensees.
Kirk also pointed to the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, created under President Biden, as another target for immediate elimination.
“Its head is on the chopping block… do we really need the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention?” he asked.
Legislative Realities for Trump’s Agenda
Discussing national concealed carry reciprocity and constitutional carry, Kirk expressed skepticism about the immediate success of such legislation.
He referenced House Resolution 9534, sponsored by Representative Thomas Massie, but noted the political challenges ahead. “The likelihood that this is going to pass out of both chambers in its current format, I think, is pretty remote,” Kirk said.
SEE ALSO: Kimber’s Stainless II 1911: One Classy Shooter
Kirk explained that even with slim majorities in Congress, pushing through comprehensive Second Amendment legislation under Trump would require time and compromise.
“If a version of this bill could be worked and passed out of both the House and the Senate, there is no doubt in my mind that President Trump would sign it,” he added.
Key Appointments in a Trump Administration
Kirk emphasized the critical role Trump’s Attorney General (Matt Gaetz) and ATF director appointments could play in shaping gun policy.
“What we simply need is a director of the ATF that’s going to start interpreting the bipartisan Safer Communities Act much differently,” he said.
He also speculated on potential legal actions a Trump-appointed Attorney General might take, such as withdrawing DOJ rules on firearms or challenging restrictive state gun laws.
Kirk admitted these moves would be challenging but not legally impossible.
“Could the Attorney General’s office actually sue the states to overturn those laws? It would be a unique move but one that would not be legally impossible,” he said.
Looking Ahead with Trump
Kirk cautioned gun owners against expecting an overnight transformation under Trump. “No, it’s not like the sun is going to rise again on January 20, 2025, and we’re not going to have anything to worry about,” he said.
He added that state-level gun control efforts would likely intensify in response to a Trump presidency.
Still, Kirk expressed optimism about Trump’s potential to reset federal gun policies.
“Clearly, the appointment of the Attorney General and an ATF director… would significantly change the entire playing field upon which the ATF operates,” he said.
Kirk concluded by urging viewers to stay informed. “Part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner… is to know what the law is in every situation,” he reminded.
What do you expect from Trump this time around?
*** 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.
my Comment: this platform like most Americans, especially the politicians, do not seem to understand what the 2nd Amendment is and it’s pupose. It was written to TRY to protect our right to keep and bear arms, NOT to give us those rights.. it was meant to prevent the government from passing laws that restrict our rights.. and it has failed miserably. At some level every branch of government has violated this amendment..
Reply From: Jim C.
Reply: Where are you getting this info, William? The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Amendments ARE the “Law of the the Land”. They are the LAWS that opposing laws break themselves against. I do not know how anyone canI do not know how anyone can say that 2A only TRIES to give us the right to bare arms. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, and simply failed. In the event you actually believe what you wrote, maybe the following will help. From the day we are born, William, all humans (in fact, all forms of life) have a “natural” right to protect ourselves, and that extends to our families and loved ones. Throughout history, people have used the best means available for protection, from rocks, to clubs, to blade instruments, and all in between, leading up to the FIREARM as the protection of choice. Then, along came our forefathers, who understood the natural right to personal defense. What one item was the most effective, simplest, and easiest available for protection? The personal firearm, of course! Our forefathers gave us the RIGHT, in the 2nd Amendment, to possess the most effective tool available for protection. They DID NOT “TRY” to do that, THEY DID IT. Currently, those who disagree with the LAW of the 2A are “trying” to change it. I do not know the source of your confusion, but I hope this helps to clear it up.
My replly to Jim: First of all Jim says in his reply “I do not know how anyone can say that 2A only TRIES to give us the right to bare arms” clearly shows that Jim has a problem with reading comprehension. Which I beleive contributes to his belief that our right to keep and bear arms is given to us by the government, OUR RIGHTS ARE INHERENT! Nowhere did I say that the 2nd Amendment tries to GIVE us the right to keep and bear arms. It is however meant to protect those rights from government infringement. And at that it has failed miserable.. every law restricting the owning of or carrying of ANY arms IS a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
And anyone and everyone who has put forth, supported such laws has violated their oath of office, the Constitution and federal law. Please do some REAL research on the subject.
A bad law is no law at all. Time to abolish gin control as we know it, and pass laws that allow law-abiding adults to arm themselves anywhere they have a right to be, and put heavier penalties on the criminal or negligent misuse of all kinds of weapons, not just guns. And expand the right to self-defense so that people who defend themselves legally don’t have to worry about having their weapons confiscated, spending time in jail, or being sued by criminals or their surviving family members.
Unfortunately Trump, (whom I admire) chose Pam Bondi for Attorney General, we’re screwed 😡 Not the 1st time Trump has done this to us!!
this platform like most Americans, especially the politicians, do not seem to understand what the 2nd Amendment is and it’s pupose. It was written to TRY to protect our right to keep and bear arms, NOT to give us those rights.. it was meant to prevent the government from passing laws that restrict our rights.. and it has failed miserably. At some level every branch of government has violated this amendment..
Where are you getting this info, William? The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Amendments ARE the “Law of the the Land”. They are the LAWS that opposing laws break themselves against. I do not know how anyone can say that 2A only TRIES to give us the right to bare arms. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, and simply failed. In the event you actually believe what you wrote, maybe the following will help.
From the day we are born, William, all humans (in fact, all forms of life) have a “natural” right to protect ourselves, and that extends to our families and loved ones. Throughout history, people have used the best means available for protection, from rocks, to clubs, to blade instruments, and all in between, leading up to the FIREARM as the protection of choice. Then, along came our forefathers, who understood the natural right to personal defense. What one item was the most effective, simplest, and easiest available for protection? The personal firearm, of course! Our forefathers gave us the RIGHT, in the 2nd Amendment, to possess the most effective tool available for protection. They DID NOT “TRY” to do that, THEY DID IT. Currently, those who disagree with the LAW of the 2A are “trying” to change it. I do not know the source of your confusion, but I hope this helps to clear it up.
I would wish for an Executive Decree that would remove any and all armed protection from any member of government that restricts the 2A rights of of any legal US citizen. If they are anti-2A then they shouldn’t mind their bodyguards to be unarmed, no armed Secret Service, no armed police escorts, no armed security at rallies, no more protection than they wish upon the proverbial 80 year old grandma walking down an unlit street in the Chicago ghettos.
Trump should immediately reverse all previous presidential executive orders that restrict importation of various types of firearms and ammunition. He should work toward repeal of the Hughes Amendment that ended manufacture of machine guns -except for the government. Suppressors should also be removed from the NFA purview. That would be a good start.
Perhaps he can finally get rid of BumpStocks.
Why? Sure they are stupid but if someone wants one who are you to say they shouldn’t have it.
It’s not like they are killing machines, they are basically a toy that adds no accuracy to a firearm and just waste ammo.
We should get rid of people that act like RINO’s and like minded people.
Because he outlawed them in his first term, after the Las Vegas Shooting. Thereby setting the precedent of executive fiat limiting our rights; leading to the order outlawing pistol braces.
From 2018:
“A bump stock, you shoot rapidly but not accurately,” Trump said. “The bullets come out fast, but you don’t know where the hell they’re going. That’s why nobody even really, too much, came to its defense. He [Paddock] used it in Las Vegas. He was using bump stocks in Las Vegas, as you know. So, I’m getting rid of them.”