The Trump administration is taking big steps to roll back gun regulations

Amna Nawaz:

During his run for the White House, President Donald Trump pledged to expand Second Amendment rights across the country. Now his administration is taking major steps to roll back gun restrictions that were put in place for public safety.

More to our judicial correspondent, Ali Rogin.

Ali Rogin:

Amna, earlier this year, the Department of Justice unveiled a major roadmap to reduce regulations on firearm purchases, arguing that the changes would — quote — “modernize gun policy.”

Now the department is also taking more targeted action, going after Democratic-led states over their gun restrictions.

To learn more about the Trump administration’s efforts to expand Second Amendment rights, I’m joined now by Chip Brownlee. He’s a staff writer at The Trace covering federal gun policy.

Chip, thanks so much. Welcome to the News Hour.

I want to ask you first about these rollbacks that the Department of Justice announced. What rules and policies will be affected here?

Chip Brownlee, Tracking:

Yes, so the ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, has proposed a bunch of rollbacks, about thirty in total.

I would say that most of the proposals they have are actually somewhat administrative. They modernize and modernize some of the processes used by gun dealers. But there are some things that are very important. One rule that has received a lot of criticism from gun reform is a rule that was intended to close the gun show loophole.

The Trump administration has proposed rolling back this rule. Then there are some other things like reducing regulations on short-barreled rifles and stocks, one of those devices that was used in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.

And some of these regulations actually restore things to what the Supreme Court has said regarding things like bump stocks. But the important thing is the rule that was intended to close the gun supply loophole.

Ali Rogin:

Another step back that has generated some controversy is reducing restrictions on people with mental illness to own a firearm. This upsets some gun safety groups. What kind of risks does this decline entail?

Chip Brownlee:

Well, the ATF – the ATF itself has actually said that there is a risk that rolling back this rule could lead to mass casualty events.

I don’t know how much of an impact that would have, because, right now, federal law says that if you’re involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility, for example, you lose your gun rights, and that remains the law.

This is kind of basically clarifying that if you’re voluntarily admitting yourself into a facility, that won’t count, and then some of the other things related to, if you’ve previously been ruled incapable of handling your own affairs, kind of removing some of those things.

But this is a regulation and a rule that has been traded back and forth between the Trump administration and — back to the Obama administration. So I don’t know that this will have as much of an impact as some people say.

Ali Rogin:

I should mention that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has disavowed some of the conclusions in the ATF study, saying…

Chip Brownlee:

Yes.

Ali Rogin:

…It doesn’t actually indicate any increased risk.

I also want to ask you about these lawsuits that the Department of Justice is bringing against the bans in California and Virginia against certain types of firearms. What led to those lawsuits?

Chip Brownlee:

Yes, since the Trump administration took over the Department of Justice, they have actually refocused the Civil Rights Division to focus on gun rights and gun rights enforcement.

This is the same division that previously imposed voting rights and desegregated schools since the 1960s. Since last year, the Trump administration has focused on gun rights. They have filed seven different lawsuits against judicial authorities across the country.

One of them, the most recent one was against the handgun list in California that requires — regulations, which is basically a list of approved handguns that people can buy, and then another regulation in California that basically bans the Glock, because there’s a piece of the Glock that makes it more likely to be equipped with a key and turn into a machine gun.

Then, in Virginia, the Department of Justice sued the state over its assault weapons ban. This is one of a number of different lawsuits the department has filed against the assault weapons ban, also in Denver, Washington, D.C., and some other places as well.

I’m not aware of the Civil Rights Division actually enforcing gun rights at any point before that. This new division has since filed seven lawsuits against jurisdictions across the country, so this is something really new that we haven’t seen before.

Ali Rogin:

The Supreme Court said, in the next session, they will consider two cases where assault weapons bans are being discussed at one state and another at the local level. What are the implications if they rule against this ban?

Chip Brownlee:

Yes, there are about a dozen states across the country that have assault weapons bans, and then there are some municipalities and local jurisdictions that enforce those bans.

So, if the Supreme Court blocks the assault weapons ban in this case, that would mean most, if not all of them across the country would be unconstitutional as well. The two orders the Supreme Court made here were the assault weapons ban in Connecticut and in Cook County, which is Chicago.

These laws have been around since the 1990s, and now the Supreme Court is likely to rule them unconstitutional. This is – again, you’re going to have dozens of states across the country that could lose their assault weapons bans, and a lot of these laws were passed in the wake of mass shootings across the country.

Ali Rogin:

Chip Brownlee from The Trace, thank you very much.

Chip Brownlee:

Thank you.