DOJ Supports Some Interstate Interests, But Not Your Right to Carry Across State Lines

(AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

It’s very difficult to sit and take seriously our own Department of Justice and the Attorney General when they’re so embroiled in contradictions. At a minimum, the DOJ plays favorites on what cause celebs they’re going to rally behind, and I don’t think it’s necessary to note that the Biden/Harris Administration, and by extension, the three letter agencies of such, loathe firearms, self-defense, and individual liberties. What’s also clear is this is a group that loves them some abortions. The DOJ recently filed a statement of interest in cases involving those seeking abortions.


This is not to serve as a treatise for or against abortions, being pro-life, pro-choice, or anything of the matter. However, I think it’s important to draw an analogue when our creepy swampy cretins play favorites with their causes, and in a rather ironic way ignore enumerated rights, while championing for something not mentioned or even inferred in our founding documents, nor the rest of our Constitution.

The DOJ put out a statement earlier this month discussing their interests in a few pieces of pending litigation.

The Justice Department filed a statement of interest today in two consolidated lawsuits seeking to protect the right to interstate travel, including the right to travel to another state to obtain an abortion that is legal in the destination state. The statement of interest explains that the Constitution protects the right to travel across state lines and engage in conduct that is lawful where it is performed and that states cannot prevent third parties from assisting others in exercising that right. The statement argues that the Alabama Attorney General’s threatened prosecutions of individuals for providing assistance to people seeking lawful out-of-state abortions are therefore unconstitutional. The cases are Yellowhammer Fund v. Marshall and West Alabama Women’s Center, et al., v. Marshall.

“As I said the day Dobbs was decided, bedrock constitutional principles dictate that women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “This filing demonstrates the Justice Department’s commitment to defending the constitutional right to travel and to protecting reproductive freedom under federal law.”

“The Reproductive Rights Task Force has been scrutinizing state laws and enforcement actions that threaten to infringe on federal protections of reproductive rights, including illegal attempts to prevent interstate travel,” said Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta. “Today’s filing is just one part of the Justice Department’s ongoing work to use all available tools to safeguard reproductive freedoms protected by the Constitution and federal law.”

“Alabama may not infringe the constitutional right to travel in order to meet its policy goals,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Civil Division will continue to assert the interests of the United States.”


There’s a lot to unpack there and plenty of parallels that can be drawn. But first, let’s look at some of the founding principles of why the DOJ was formed in the first place. In May of 2022, I discussed this and I’ll bring it up again.

Pulling a page out of history, let’s look at that Department of Justice and what they were up to from the time of its founding. Two years after the official formation of the DOJ, an April 19, 1872 letter addressed to the House of Representatives noted withinMessages and Papers of the Presidents Ulysses S. Grant, Grant addressed some issues that his then Attorney General and others communicated to him:

EXECUTIVE MANSION , April 19 , 1872. To the House of Representatives :

Most, if not all, of this information, except what I derived from the Attorney – General, came to me orally, and was to the effect that said counties were under the sway of powerful combinations, properly known as “Kuklux Klans,” the objects of which were by force and terror to prevent all political action not in accord with the views of the members; to deprive colored citizens of the right to bear arms and of the right to a free ballot; to suppress schools in which colored children were taught, and to reduce the colored people to a condition closely akin to that of slavery; that these combinations were organized and armed, and had rendered the local laws ineffectual to protect the classes whom they desired to oppress; that they had perpetrated many murders and hundreds of crimes of minor degree, all of which were unpunished; and that witnesses could not safely testify against them unless the more active members were placed under restraint.


The DOJ was formed in part to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms was not kept out of reach from the newly emancipated and freed slaves. This is an important detail, because all I ever see the DOJ try to do in the 21st Century is to deprive all citizens the right to bear arms.

What’s this have to do with abortion? Nothing. Other than it sure would be nice if the DOJ wrote statements of interest when it comes to the support of and advocating for an enumerated right, such as the Second Amendment.

In 2023, there’s no lack of controversy where jurisdictions, executives, legislators, judges,, are all clearly trying to deprive the population of their Second Amendment rights. It seems the current-day DOJ is complicit at best, celebratory and encouraging – participating in – in reality, of the destruction of that civil liberty.

My wish list of things that the DOJ should be championing for is rather long, but let’s just take a small sample based on what they’re supporting in the unrelated matter. Let’s look at Garland’s own words and his “commitment to defending the constitutional right to travel.” When it comes to paring that with the Second Amendment can we get Garland to support the removal of restrictions and creation of law that sees we have:

  • The ability to purchase pistols in other states.
  • Universal reciprocity for the carry of firearms in other states – in reality complete Constitutional
  • Carry federally across all states and territories.
  • The ability to transport accessories and ammunition of any kind through and into any state, seeing that laws prohibiting people from “freer” states are not hindered by Draconian states, thus abolishing all unconstitutional laws.
  • The removal of any prohibitions on people seeking lodging while traveling through a state should they be in possession of a firearm.
  • The removal of any state prohibitions to purchasing ammunition in another state, up to and including the needing of documentation to do so.

That’s a small filet of the thousands of laws and policies the DOJ should be seeing a demise of under his “commitment to defending the constitutional right to travel.” I mean if he’s going to protect that for abortions, why not an actual amendment from the Bill of Rights? This is a slippery slope that I’d love to see ridden, as we watch the repeal of nearly all the gun laws in the entire country – that’s what we’d be looking at.

We know the answers to these questions and what drives these concepts. Attorney General Garland is a swampy hack that did not make it over the finish line to become a Supreme Court Justice. We know Garland was selected for the job because of his political leanings and thirst for totalitarian rule. We’re not likely to see any support from Garland, the three letter agencies, or anyone/thing under the Biden/Harris administration when he’s actually campaigning against right-to-carry reciprocity in his re-election bid.

All the more reason to point out how hypocritical and biased they really are. We know that we need to keep the wagons circled and always be prepared for the next wave of attacks on our liberties coming from the people who allegedly swore to protect them.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member