We had two viable choices in the 2024 election: either a candidate who had advocated for at least two partial gun bans, or Donald Trump, who promised to protect our gun rights. It wasn't much of a decision for most of us.

Trump won and started on a good path. As I noted on Thursday, in a post written much earlier in the day, he had a solid first 100 days from a gun rights perspective, but there was still a lot left to do. I floated some suggestions.

What happened, though, was something that I didn't actually expect.

It seems that the Department of Justice decided to file an amicus brief in the challenge to Hawaii's law that makes all private property gun-free unless the owner specifically opts to allow concealed carry.

I'm going to let Second Amendment attorney Kostas Moros delve into why that's significant.

Time for a thread on the amicus brief submitted by the United States (!!!) in Wolford v. Lopez.

To my knowledge, it is the first-ever Supreme Court brief filed by the United States in full support of petitioners challenging a gun law as unconstitutional under the Second… pic.twitter.com/yNeaOgTUHf

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) May 1, 2025

Post continues:

...Amendment, but someone correct me if I am wrong on that assertion. The amicus brief in Heller that the Bush administration did was more wishy-washy (i.e., yes 2A is an individual right but please remand because the analysis was wrong).

Great introduction that goes into the ramifications of the vampire rule. And as our amicus brief will cover, this was intentional. The vampire rule was created by antigun academics who openly stated the aim was to discourage carry. pic.twitter.com/6NyZY0kw7a

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) May 1, 2025

So shocking that Hawaii, a state which almost never issued CCW permits before it was forced to, is trying to undermine Bruen! 🤣 pic.twitter.com/xgED8myf08

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) May 1, 2025

Wait you guys weren't carrying chainsaws? pic.twitter.com/NF9a8naeLT

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) May 1, 2025

There's still an awful lot left where Moros delves deeper into the issue, but the overall tone is that this is a legitimately good thing.

I had my reservations about Pam Bondi as attorney general. She defended the post-Parkland gun control as Florida's attorney general, and that she'd be, at best, lukewarm on defending the Second Amendment.

She's not been as great as some might like, but she's been far, far better than what I feared.

This is what I voted for. I voted for a vigorous defense of the Second Amendment, and not just by not passing new gun control laws. There's a difference between being pro-gun and anti-gun control, after all, and far too many supposedly pro-gun lawmakers think holding the status quo is enough.

Sure, it's better than being anti-gun, but it's not remotely sufficient.

Stuff like this, though? This is a vigorous defense of the Second Amendment. It's not enough in and of itself, mind you, but as a harbinger of what we'll see over the rest of President Trump's term? It's a damn good start.

Hawaii is trying to frame this whole thing as being about property rights, and I'm a big supporter of property rights. However, I'll point out to Hawaii that my free speech is assumed to apply in private property unless you're specifically asked not to say certain things. Likewise, the Second Amendment should be treated the same, at a minimum.

I'm damn glad to see this from the Trump administration. Keep it up.