Pam Bondi made a lot of pro-gunners nervous. That was particularly true in Florida, where she served as attorney general and vehemently defended the post-Parkland gun control laws that have accomplished nothing. Folks down there weren't thrilled with the pick.
Now, fellow Georgian Rep. Andrew Clyde, among others, is urging Trump not to make that same mistake again.
Instead, they want a real pro-Second Amendment attorney general, and the metric for that is what they'll do on day one.
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R) is leading a coalition of GOP House members urging President Donald Trump to pick an Attorney-General who will “immediately” wipe away Biden-era ATF gun controls.
Clyde and 32 other House members signed an April 21, 2026, letter, asking Trump to choose and A-G who will “immediately cease enforcement of Biden-era gun rules and secure permanent–not temporary–relief.”
The letter then lists three specific rules that the A-G should target:
- Biden’s pistol stabilizing brace rule, which the DOJ continues to enforce against certain
firearms despite pro-Second Amendment injunctions;- Biden’s so-called “ghost gun” regulation, which survived U.S. Supreme Court review only
because the DOJ failed to render the case moot; and- Biden’s engaged in the business (universal background check) rule, which the DOJ has
maneuvered to keep in place rather than pursue full repeal.Through the letter, Clyde and his colleagues also ask the next A-G to set forth clear guidance, preventing DOJ attorneys from defending unconstitutional gun laws:
That would be delightful. Every part of that would be absolutely amazing, and I'm here for it. Nothing that Clyde is asking for here is anything out of step with the average gun rights supporter, and even many who aren't completely in the pro-Second Amendment camp. Some of that, when people recognize what happened, outrages a lot of folks who don't really follow gun rights stuff.
And since that's kind of what we all voted for, it's not too much to ask that we actually get it.
This is one of those cases where the Trump administration could legitimately fire up the pro-gun base prior to the midterms by doing just that. None of these are laws that Congress passed. These were all unilateral actions by the Biden administration to appease the anti-gun side. Removing these measures will cost Trump nothing. The people who will lose their minds aren't going to vote Republican anyway, and we all know it.
So there's no downside to this for Trump.
Clyde and his cohorts in this are in the right. They're asking for things we should have gotten before Bondi was nominated. None of us was thrilled with her as a choice, but if she just did as she was told, then it might have worked out just fine. Well, I don't know if she did as instructed or not, but the outcome didn't look any different than what she'd have likely done on her own in a lot of legal cases regarding gun rights.
I think Harmeet Dhillon would fit the bill. She's doing solid work as the head of the Civil Rights division, and I think she'd do a lot of this on day one. If not, though, I have little doubt we could find plenty of other options that would fit the bill.
Washington probably won't like any of them, though.
Yes, that's a bonus here. If you're going to drain the swamp, as Trump has promised time and time again, you can't be worried about whether the swamp is happy with you.
Either way, put a pro-gunner in there, let them go on the first day of business, and watch the pro-gun voters turn out in the midterms to help Republicans hold onto as many seats, if not gain a few, as possible.
Or don't, and then when Republicans lose control, you can wonder why the pro-gun crowd didn't turn out.
I mean, if we're going to get screwed either way, I understand why some people would stay home and watch NICS reruns.
