Pirro’s Blanket Threat Contradicts DOJ’s Own Supreme Court Arguments, Cato Scholar Says
The top federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia has issued a stark warning that directly contradicts her own department’s legal positions and multiple Supreme Court precedents protecting the right to bear arms.
In a Fox News interview Monday, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro delivered an unambiguous threat to gun owners nationwide: “You bring a gun into the District, you mark my words, you’re going to jail. I don’t care if you have a license in another district, and I don’t care if you’re a law-abiding gun owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this District, count on going to jail, and hope you get the gun back.”
The statement has drawn sharp rebuke from Second Amendment scholars who note the glaring contradiction between Pirro’s words and the Department of Justice’s own legal arguments before the Supreme Court.
DOJ Arguing Both Sides of Second Amendment
Matthew Cavedon, director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, laid out the administration’s troubling inconsistency in a new analysis. Just two weeks before Pirro’s threat, DOJ attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that Americans generally have a Second Amendment right to carry firearms on property open to the public. The department has also launched a campaign to sue cities that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
“Pirro should run her position by her colleagues at the Department of Justice,” Cavedon wrote, noting the irony that DOJ likely won’t be targeting Washington, D.C., in its new enforcement campaign despite Pirro’s categorical denial of gun rights in the nation’s capital.
The constitutional case against Pirro’s position couldn’t be clearer. Three landmark Supreme Court decisions have established that Americans have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, including in public spaces and outside the home.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s handgun ban as violating “the ancient right” to possess firearms for self-defense. McDonald v. City of Chicago recognized that “the right to keep and bear arms” is “among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” And New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen confirmed Americans have a constitutional “right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
Notably, Bruen specifically addressed attempts to create gun-free zones in major cities, describing as unconstitutional any effort to “effectively declare the island of Manhattan” a weapons-free area, as this “would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.”
“Surely, this is no less true where the setting is the capital city lying between the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers,” Cavedon observed.
Historical Tradition Supports Armed Travel
The constitutional case for carrying firearms while traveling is particularly strong when viewed through the historical lens required by Bruen. That decision mandated that any gun regulation must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition” to pass constitutional muster.
As Second Amendment scholar David Kopel has documented, there were no laws requiring government permission to purchase or borrow firearms until nearly 150 years after Independence. Moreover, the right to keep and bear arms was historically most essential when people traveled, facing threats from wild animals and brigands far from the protection of home and community.
Americans also possess a fundamental constitutional right to travel freely throughout the country. The combination of these two core protections should clearly establish a right to carry firearms across domestic borders. Cato has filed multiple legal briefs making this exact argument.
While Bruen does contain a footnote acknowledging that jurisdictions can impose their own permit requirements, Cavedon notes the “tension” in this area, “worthy of the Supreme Court’s review.” What’s “incredible,” he writes, is for Pirro to threaten every visiting gun owner with jail time and confiscation, then “turn around today and immediately insist that she is ‘a proud supporter of the Second Amendment.’”
Pattern of Selective Enforcement
Pirro’s statement is part of a disturbing pattern from the Trump administration regarding Second Amendment rights. The administration continues to face criticism following the Alex Pretti shooting, where officials wrongly claimed there is no constitutional right to bear arms while protesting.
“Pirro’s words yesterday doubled down on the administration’s selective approach to the Second Amendment,” Cavedon wrote. “Americans deserve an answer: Is the right to keep and bear arms their entitlement, or does its reach depend on what’s good for the DOJ?”
For law-abiding gun owners who must travel through or conduct business in the nation’s capital, Pirro’s threat represents more than just tough rhetoric. It’s a categorical denial of constitutional rights based solely on geography—the very kind of approach the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected.
The patchwork of conflicting gun laws across jurisdictions already forces citizens to navigate a regulatory minefield. Pirro’s absolute prohibition on carrying firearms in D.C., regardless of legal status elsewhere, epitomizes the need for national reciprocity protections that would prevent Americans from becoming felons simply by crossing district or state lines while exercising fundamental rights.
As the controversy develops, gun rights advocates are demanding clarity from an administration that claims to support the Second Amendment while its prosecutors threaten law-abiding gun owners with prosecution for exercising it.
Matthew Cavedon is available to discuss the constitutional implications of Pirro’s statement. Contact Christopher Tarvardian, Media Relations Manager, at (513) 349-8389.
For more information, visit the Cato Institute’s blog at cato.org or contact Christopher Tarvardian at (513) 349-8389
More on TTAG Involving The District of Columbia (Washington DC)