Attorney General Pam Bondi is learning a difficult lesson in modern American politics. Being labeled “pro-gun” is no longer sufficient for some gun rights advocates. As criticism from Gun Owners of America makes clear, the Second Amendment movement is increasingly divided, not between gun owners and gun control advocates, but within its own ranks over strategy and expectations.
Pro-Gun in Name, Not Enough in Practice
GOA recently accused Bondi of an “ultimate betrayal” of the Second Amendment, arguing that a legal position taken by the Justice Department could be used to justify sweeping handgun restrictions.
The language was severe, but it reflects a broader frustration among hard-line activists who view any compromise, legal nuance, or incremental approach as unacceptable.
At the heart of this conflict is a distinction that comes down to what the current objective is and what it might be later: is there a meaningful difference between eliminating a law and reducing its practical impact to zero.
In the case of gun-related taxes or fees, setting the tax at $0 achieves the same real-world result for gun owners as repeal. No money is collected. No financial barrier exists. The right can be exercised without cost.
Governing in the Real World vs. Fighting in Theory
Governing, however, is not the same as activism. The Attorney General does not operate in a vacuum.
Courts, precedent, and statutory language all impose constraints. Within those constraints, reducing a tax to zero might have been the most realistic and durable path forward. It delivers immediate action while avoiding the legal and political battles that can stall reform indefinitely.
Bondi’s critics argue that leaving the law intact allows for the possibility that the tax could be raised again in the future. That concern is understandable, but it applies to nearly every policy decision in a democratic system.
Laws are always subject to change. Rejecting present gains because of hypothetical future actions risks ensuring no progress at all.
How Purity Tests Fracture the Second Amendment Coalition
The backlash also highlights a deeper problem within the gun rights movement. An increasingly rigid definition of what it means to support the Second Amendment leaves little room for practical governance. Under this mindset, anything short of total repeal is framed as betrayal, even when the outcome for gun owners is materially the same at the moment.
This absolutism may weaken the cause it seeks to defend. When gun rights groups turn inward and attack officials who deliver tangible results, they fracture coalitions and alienate potential allies. Symbolic victories become more important than practical outcomes.
Legal arguments matter, and vigilance is necessary when constitutional rights are at stake. Accountability should not become scorched-earth politics. Reducing a tax to zero is not a surrender. It is a strategy that works within reality while achieving the stated goal.
If no compromise is ever acceptable, then no official will ever be “pro-gun enough.” That standard may satisfy the most committed activists, but it does little to protect rights in practice. Making the tax zero may not be ideologically perfect, but for gun owners, it achieves a necessary result along the path to a true understanding of 2A rights in America.
"If no compromise is ever acceptable, then no official will ever be “pro-gun enough.”"
Even Friendly Governments Still Betray Gun Owners
In defense of the hard-line stance, it is always important to remember that the government will always be the government. Let’s not forget that it was Ronald Reagan as Governor of California who enacted the Mulford Act, restricting the open carry of firearms, and later supported bans on so-called “assault-style” weapons after his assassination attempt. President Trump had his own run-in with gun rights advocates after the Las Vegas shooting and the subsequent ban on bump stocks.
Law-abiding citizens must always be vigilant in defense of the Constitution, because government is going to government. Striking a compromise is often the clearest path forward, but that does not mean the public forfeits its right to criticize weak legislation or to keep pushing the envelope in defense of constitutional rights.
Become a Right To Bear member and get the backup you can trust