Harmeet Dhillon, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, used an appearance on I’m Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TV to deliver a pointed message to Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger: sign the assault firearms ban, and the Department of Justice will sue. That warning, combined with a public recruitment call for Second Amendment litigators, signals that the DOJ’s year-old Second Amendment Section is not slowing down — it is scaling up.
AR-15s and the Bruen Framework
Dhillon’s legal argument rests on familiar but increasingly firm ground. Under the Supreme Court’s framework in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that any firearms regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion made clear that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers individual conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects it.
Dhillon told Kelly that “semi-automatic rifles of the nature of the AR-15 are protected by the Constitution and by the Second Amendment,” and that the historical analysis under Bruen makes this conclusion inescapable. It is a position the DOJ has now staked out publicly — and backed with the threat of immediate litigation.
Spanberger Blinks — But for How Long?
Governor Spanberger’s deadline to sign the assault firearms legislation passed without her signature. Instead, she returned the bill to the General Assembly with minor technical amendments that, as Dhillon noted, “don’t cure the problems” the DOJ identified. The move buys time but resolves nothing.
Whether Spanberger’s hesitation stems from the DOJ’s warning or from the approaching April 21 redistricting referendum is an open question. Virginia Democrats have spent heavily to pass a constitutional amendment that would redraw congressional maps in their favor, potentially flipping four U.S. House seats in the midterms. Spanberger may be waiting for that political dust to settle before picking a fight with the federal government.
Either way, the assault firearms ban is not the only legislation raising constitutional concerns. Spanberger signed a so-called ghost gun bill restricting home-manufactured firearms and their components, as well as a manufacturer liability bill that would strip legal protections from gun makers and hold them responsible for crimes committed with their products. Dhillon signaled that both measures are under review, noting that the right to bear arms “is meaningless if you’re not able to acquire those firearms” — a pointed observation about legislation designed to make the business of manufacturing guns economically unviable.
DOJ Actively Recruiting Second Amendment Lawyers
Perhaps the most significant development was not the Virginia threat but the hiring call. Dhillon used the interview to publicly encourage attorneys to apply to the Second Amendment Section through the DOJ’s careers portal, stating that the division needs more lawyers to keep pace with the volume of unconstitutional state laws being enacted.
This is not a bureaucratic footnote. Established in late 2025, the Second Amendment Section represents the first time in the Civil Rights Division’s 68-year history that the office has affirmatively litigated on behalf of gun owners. It has already filed multiple lawsuits, including an action against Los Angeles County over concealed carry permit delays. More lawyers means more capacity to open new fronts — and the pipeline of targets in blue states is long.
The NRA Firearms Law Seminar
The timing is no coincidence. The National Firearms Law Seminar at the 155th NRA Annual Meetings in Houston features Dhillon alongside Robert Leider, the ATF’s chief counsel and former Antonin Scalia Law School professor. Leider’s presence is notable given ongoing questions about ATF rulemaking — with Robert Cekada’s nomination as ATF Director still awaiting Senate confirmation, the agency lacks a confirmed leader, slowing regulatory reform under the Administrative Procedure Act.
What Comes Next
The DOJ’s posture is unmistakable: it intends to treat Second Amendment violations by state and local governments with the same seriousness the Civil Rights Division has historically applied to other constitutional rights. Whether that translates into lasting structural change depends on how quickly the section can staff up, how many states continue to push the envelope, and whether the courts continue to apply Bruen with the rigor the framework demands. For now, the trend line favors gun owners — but the work is far from finished.
This article is based on analysis by Mark W. Smith on The Four Boxes Diner. Watch the original video. This does not constitute legal advice.