In a resounding affirmation of the Second Amendment, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Pam Bondi has launched a federal lawsuit against the District of Columbia (D.C.), challenging the city’s draconian gun registration laws that unlawfully prohibit law-abiding American citizens from owning semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15.

The case was filed on December 22, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal action targets the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and its Chief, Pamela Smith, alleging that she has enforced firearms restrictions that blatantly violate the United States Constitution, as affirmed by Supreme Court rulings in cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This legal action by the DOJ signals a seismic shift from the federal government violating an American’s Constitutionally protected rights towards protecting the fundamental right of Americans to keep and bear arms, ensuring that residents in the Nation’s Capital can exercise their constitutional freedoms without fear of government reprisals.

The legal brief in the United States v. District of Columbia alleges a systemic “pattern or practice” of denying registrations for firearms “in common use,” in direct contravention of 34 U.S.C. § 1260c1. D.C. Code sections, including § 7-2502.01 and § 7-2501.01, impose a blanket ban on registering semi-automatic rifles, pistols with threaded barrels that accept detachable magazines, and shotguns with pistol grips. The DOJ dismisses these features as superficial and unrelated to any legitimate public safety concerns. As the complaint states, these laws criminalize possession of arms that tens of millions of Americans rely on daily, subjecting D.C. residents to potential arrests, fines up to $2,500, and jail time for merely defending their homes and families.

“Today’s action from the Department of Justice’s new Second Amendment Section underscores our ironclad commitment to protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi in the official press release. “Washington, DC’s ban on some of America’s most popular firearms is an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment — living in our nation’s capital should not preclude law-abiding citizens from exercising their fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” Bondi’s words highlight the DOJ’s renewed focus on dismantling anti-gun policies that erode personal liberties.

Echoing this sentiment, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division declared, “This Civil Rights Division will defend American citizens from unconstitutional restrictions of commonly used firearms, in violation of their Second Amendment rights.” She added, “The newly established Second Amendment Section filed this lawsuit to ensure that the very rights D.C. resident Mr. Heller secured 17 years ago are enforced today — and that all law-abiding citizens seeking to own protected firearms for lawful purposes may do so.” Dhillon’s leadership in the newly formed Second Amendment Section marks a historic pivot, treating gun rights as the civil liberties they are, protected against tyrannical local ordinances.

This @CivilRights and @AGPamBondi are taking aim at unlawful restrictions nationwide, including today in our backyard at the District of Columbia! pic.twitter.com/nhxG7bUZsK

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) December 22, 2025

The case directly relies on Heller, in which the Supreme Court held that law-abiding citizens have an individual right to possess handguns and other common firearms in the home for self-defense. As the press release notes, “In 2003, a D.C. special policeman named Dick Heller sued Washington, D.C. because the laws at the time prevented him from owning a handgun and keeping it in his home for self-defense.” The Court ruled that the Second Amendment safeguards arms “in common use today,” a standard that clearly encompasses the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America, as confirmed in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Yet D.C. continues to require residents to navigate a maze of bureaucracy or face prosecution for owning arms in common use.

Matthew Cavedon, Director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, said this to AmmoLand in response to the lawsuit, “It was DC’s disregard for the right to keep and bear arms that first led the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment protects individual rights. Apparently, the District still hasn’t gotten the message, maintaining one of the stingiest gun-control regimes in the country. The Supreme Court has insisted time and again that keeping and bearing arms is not a second-class right. This latest lawsuit should make that message even clearer for DC – and other jurisdictions that are unwilling to respect Americans’ rights.”

The DOJ’s complaint seeks a declaration that the D.C. bans on AR-15s and similar firearms are unconstitutional. The Department demands permanent injunctions against arrests or fines for citizens found in possession of AR-15s, and mandates streamlined registration processes. It cites other ongoing cases, such as Yzaguirre v. District of Columbia, in which MPD’s denials have led to lawsuits. “MPD’s current pattern and practice of refusing to register protected firearms is forcing residents to sue to protect their rights and to risk facing wrongful arrest for lawfully possessing protected firearms,” the press release emphasizes.

Gun rights advocates are celebrating this as a game-changer. Gun Owners of America (GOA), The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have long argued that such bans are relics of gun-control extremism, and this federal intervention validates their stance.

This follows the DOJ’s recent suit against the U.S. Virgin Islands for similar violations, establishing a pattern of aggressive defense for gun owners. Critics of gun control, like those at Reason magazine and GOA, have called for the DOJ to stop defending federal overreaches and instead champion individual rights, a call that’s being answered in this case, but ignored in cases challenging the Constitutionality of short-barreled rifles(SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBS), any other weapons (AOWs), and suppressors being included in the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Anti-gun groups, however, are predictably alarmed, viewing this as an attack on “common-sense” measures. Organizations like Brady United and Giffords decry the focus on “gun rights” as endangering public safety, but their arguments crumble under Bruen’s history-and-tradition test, which finds no analogue for broad bans on popular arms. In the inner-city of D.C., where crime rates are extremely high, these restrictions only empower criminals while disarming the innocent.

If victorious, this lawsuit could liberate D.C. gun owners and set a precedent for rolling back similar bans nationwide, reinforcing that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. As proceedings unfold into 2026, gun enthusiasts and constitutional defenders will watch closely, hopeful for a future where the right to bear arms is fully respected in every corner of America.

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

Department of Justice Rescinds ATF Guidance Documents

Federal Judge Rules Post Office Gun Ban Unconstitutional