
“You contacted the Department of Justice on March 5, 2025,” a response from the DOJ to an X.com Second Amendment advocate (left unnamed here because he is intentionally known on social media only by a screen name to protect his privacy and employability) begins. “After careful review of what you submitted, we have decided not to take any further action on your complaint.”
This is a new development in a story AmmoLand Shooting Sports News readers have been apprised of since a November 2023 report, “Judicial System Reeks with Democrat Political Bias Against Guns & More,” followed up the next December in “Illinois Shows Disinterest in Judicial Conflict Challenge as More Evidence Emerges.”
Properly outraged by such in-your-face Democrat political/judicial tag-teaming against the Second Amendment in Illinois, the advocate notified the federal government, hoping a new administration proclaiming fidelity to gun owner rights would be receptive.
They aren’t.
“Team members from the Civil Rights Division reviewed the information you submitted,” the DOJ response explained. “Based on this information, our team determined that the situation you described does not appear to be within the jurisdiction of the federal civil rights laws we enforce.” The response went on to say that even if an investigation had been within their jurisdiction, they have the power to exercise discretion and sit on their hands. Not in those words, but that’s what was conveyed.
What was it the advocate wanted a reluctant DOJ to look into?
“On 8/11/23, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled to uphold the state Assault Weapon ban. It was 4-3, with Justice Rochford authoring the opinion,” he wrote. “She violated current SCOTUS precedent (Caperton V Massey) by refusing to recuse herself regarding blatant conflicts of both political interests (campaigned with/was bankrolled by the main defendant(s) and was endorsed/took money from a lobbying group that lobbied for the law).
“In fact, after she was sworn in, she attended a lobbying event with the lobbying group that endorsed/gave money to her for the very law she would later rule on and be the sole reason the law was upheld,” his report continued. “I am including two articles that go into great detail on these instances, and for these reasons, I am filing a civil rights complaint against Justice Elizabeth Rochford of the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board for just tossing aside complaints regarding this.
“My 2nd Amendment rights as a US citizen are in clear violation due to the blatant conflicts of interest with the court/justice and her refusal to recuse from the case in order to help out her campaign buddy/donor and the activist/lobbying group she also campaigned with and got money from, all of which are a clear violation of settled SCOTUS precedent.”
The reports he attached, complete with plenty of photographic evidence to back up all claims, were:
- Pre-trial at the Illinois Supreme Court: Updated!! Conflict of interest with IL Supreme Court and gun ban ruling appeal (Caulkins case)?
- Illinois Supreme Court Twitter account censoring replies regarding Pritzker $$ to justices
- Right after the ruling with undisclosed information that was uncovered: Major hurdle for the IL Supreme Court justice who upheld the IL gun ban
Yet despite clear evidence of bias, thanks to a U.S. Department of Justice official policy of deliberate indifference, such judges will remain on the bench. They will continue to rule against the right to keep and bear arms in lawfare cases and to uphold edicts clearly written in defiance of the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard of following text, history, and tradition at the time the Constitution was ratified.
At this writing, gun owners are eagerly awaiting word from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who got an extended deadline to report to President Donald Trump on Biden administration’s Second Amendment infringements. What remains unclear are concrete DOJ plans to rescind illegitimate rules, revise the government’s position on pending cases, and take an active role in protecting citizens against rights violations by inferior courts and state governments.
Those are all areas where an Office of Second Amendment Protection, led by Vice President JD Vance, replacing Biden’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention, led by Vice President Kamala Harris, would prove invaluable. Second Amendment leaders and legal scholars could be identified and nominated to analyze and prioritize bills, lawsuits, regulations, opportunities, and threats, to advise on judicial and other federal nominees, and to help educate the public. Plenty are eager to help.
Such an Office would also provide a way for the public to express their concerns and to offer ideas and suggestions, meaning gun owners would have a conduit that would lead through it to the president. Such a team advising the DOJ, which has the resources to fight battles gun groups need to scrape and beg for, would be able to turn the lawfare equation on its head.
What’s needed are two things: Our “gun rights leaders” demanding it and the administration willing to back up all its grand promises to gun owners with meaningful actions.
Or we could keep doing what we’re doing, with more and more gun owners feeling disillusioned and taken for granted and wondering what effects opportunities blown will have on the 2026 toss-up midterms that will be here before we know it.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Second Amendment rights violations under the Biden administration? What about Second Amendment rights violations under all the other administrations over the last 90 years?
Unreal. This “Judge” is something else. Either she just doesn’t care about appearing impartial or she’s really really stupid. This is a prime example of a judge who should be reprimanded
Without doubt Illinois Judge Elizabeth Rochford is in direct violation of the basics of Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct; specifically Rule 63 Canon 3. A Should Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently, under C Disqualification: “(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:….” https://jib.illinois.gov/constitutional.html#faq-rule63canon3ashouldperformthedutiesofjudicialofficeimpartiallyanddiligently-faq
I’m a single issue voter. The Second Amendment. That’s it. Trump made promises. I voted accordingly. Now, what’s happened? Bondi get’s an EXTENSION on her 2A report? What’s this, is this going to be like the Epstein files, JFK and MLK files, just keep kicking the can down the road? Where’s the “pro gun” part of this administration? Where’s the “pro gun” part of this congress? It wasn’t just Trump, the GOP as a whole is “pro gun” remember? I voted for the GOP candidate for congress, (he lost), but, the Republicans control D.C., and are the party of “faith,… Read more »
?justice/ department …more like more fraud upon the people
Seems cracks are appearing in Bondi’s plans. I’m disappointed but not surprised, I remember her Florida post. What’s distressing is that it appears our 2A is not her top priority or concern.
I said it before that an industry stakeholder advisory committee reporting directly to the POTUS and VP is key, and your suggestion for a retool of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention would accomplish the same thing.