Gun News

How Trump’s DOJ Outmaneuvered the Left on Felon’s Gun Rights

DOJ openly admitted that permanent bans on non-violent felons raise real Second Amendment concerns — a striking departure from decades of bipartisan silence on the issue.
Rather than defend the ban, Solicitor General John Sauer urged the Court to step aside, effectively conceding that Vincent and others may have strong cases for restoring their rights through the DOJ’s revived Section 925(c) process.
The brief signaled a tactical retreat from the Supreme Court to avoid risking bad precedent, a move that some gun-rights advocates may see as brilliant long-game strategy, while others may criticize as dodging a direct constitutional showdown.

Washington, DC – The Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) just filed a major brief in the Supreme Court case Vincent v. Bondi.

At first glance, it might look like they’re dodging the fight over “non-violent felons” and their Second Amendment rights. But read closely, and you’ll see something different: this is a calculated move to protect gun rights from being undermined by bad precedent.

What the Case Is About

Melynda Vincent, the petitioner, was convicted of bank fraud back in 2008. Her crime? Passing a bad check for under $500 and admitting to more check fraud as part of a plea deal. Importantly, she never committed violence, never harmed anyone, and served no prison time. Yet under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal “felon-in-possession” law, she is barred for life from owning a firearm.

Vincent argues this ban violates the Second Amendment because she is not—and never has been—a danger to herself or others. The question her case raises is straightforward: Can the government permanently disarm non-violent offenders with old convictions, even when there’s no history of violence?

The Trump DOJ’s Clever Play

In the brief, Solicitor General John Sauer didn’t argue that Vincent should stay disarmed forever, nor did he defend permanent bans on non-violent offenders. Instead, he made a strategic move: he told the Court that because Attorney General Pam Bondi has reopened the Section 925(c) relief process, Vincent now has a real path to restore her rights without Supreme Court intervention. Sauer essentially acknowledged that Vincent has a strong case for relief, but emphasized that the DOJ’s new program makes the idea of “permanent disarmament” outdated.

Here’s what the Trump administration wrote in their brief opposing the petition for Cert in this Vincent case.

This matters because it gives the Court an off-ramp. Rather than forcing the Justices to take a divisive felon-in-possession case—which could risk creating damaging nationwide precedent—the brief reassures them that gun rights can still be vindicated through the DOJ’s restored administrative process. In other words, the Trump DOJ is telling the Court: there’s no need to spend one of your limited case slots here, because the system is already working to return Second Amendment rights to people like Vincent.

In other words, instead of asking the Supreme Court to take Vincent’s case, the DOJ told the Court to step aside—for now. Here’s why:

The Restoration Process Is Back

For decades, Section 925(c) of federal law has allowed felons to apply for relief and get their rights back. But since 1992, Congress blocked the ATF from processing those applications by cutting off funding. That left millions of Americans permanently disarmed with no way out.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Pam Bondi fixed that. She pulled the program out of ATF and put it directly under DOJ control. Now, felons with non-violent convictions can apply to have their rights restored. In fact, the DOJ has already granted relief to multiple applicants.

Why Risk the Supreme Court?

The current Court has been strong on the Second Amendment in cases like Bruen and Rahimi. But it’s also not sympathetic toward criminals—even non-violent ones. The Trump DOJ recognizes the danger: if Vincent’s case went forward and the Court ruled against her, it could cement bad precedent nationwide. That would give anti-gun activists a weapon to use in every courtroom.

By steering Vincent (and others) toward the new Section 925(c) process, the DOJ avoids risking a damaging Supreme Court loss while still opening a real path to restore gun rights.

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

This filing shows two important things:

The Trump DOJ is thinking ahead. Instead of rushing into a risky case, they’re making sure the Second Amendment movement doesn’t suffer setbacks at the highest court. Strategy matters as much as principle.
Restoration is now real. For the first time in over 30 years, there’s a working federal process for non-violent felons to get their gun rights back. That’s a big deal. It means thousands of Americans unfairly barred from exercising their rights now have hope.

The DOJ even hinted in its brief that Vincent has a “strong case for relief” if she applies. That’s as close to a wink and a nod as you’ll see in government writing.

The Bigger Picture

Gun rights advocates often face a trap: push too hard in the wrong case, and you risk creating Supreme Court precedent that hurts the Second Amendment for decades. The Trump DOJ is playing the long game.

By reviving Section 925(c), they’re putting power back into the hands of individuals who can show they’re not dangerous. This approach takes away the “permanent disarmament” argument and keeps the Court from setting bad law.

In short, it’s not a retreat—it’s a smart tactical withdrawal that sets the stage for bigger wins down the road.

Final Take

Some in the gun community might be disappointed that the DOJ didn’t push Vincent’s case straight through the Supreme Court. But that misses the point. This is chess, not checkers.

By creating a real path for restoring rights, the Trump DOJ and Attorney General Pam Bondi have advanced the Second Amendment cause more than one risky court fight ever could. Now it’s on us to spread the word: “relief is possible, rights can be restored, and the fight for full Second Amendment freedom is alive and well.”