Republican Florida Rep. Greg Steube issued a forceful response to comments from Jeanine Pirro, President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, after she warned that anyone carrying a firearm in Washington, D.C., should expect to be arrested.
During a Monday night interview with Fox News host Martha MacCallum, Pirro took a hard line on guns in the nation’s capital while discussing efforts to remove repeat offenders and illegal firearms from the streets.
“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! And that makes all the difference,” Pirro warned.
Her remarks immediately drew criticism from gun-rights advocates and several Republican lawmakers, including Steube, who pointed out that lawful concealed carry is permitted in Washington, D.C., including for non-residents.
“I bring a gun into the district every week, @USAttyPirro. I have a license in Florida and DC to carry. And I will continue to carry to protect myself and others,” Steube wrote on X. “Come and Take it!”
MacCallum defended Pirro’s position during the interview, arguing that tougher enforcement changes behavior. “It’s amazing how accountability works, and people think if they actually get arrested they might have to do time and they might get taken off the street, it sorta puts a little bit of a different message in people’s heads.”
Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie also pushed back, noting that D.C. law allows permitted carry and has done so for years.
“The District of Columbia has been ‘shall issue’ since 2017 when the requirement that you must have a ‘good reason’ to carry a handgun was struck down. Non-residents can obtain a permit in DC — don’t ask me how I know,” Massie said in a post on X.
In a separate post, Massie questioned Pirro’s rhetoric more broadly, writing, “Why is a ‘conservative’ judge threatening to arrest gun owners?”
The National Rifle Association clapped back at Pirro on Tuesday, writing on social media, “Now is the time for Congress to pass HR 38, the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Your right to self-defense should not end simply because you crossed a state line or into Washington, D.C.”
The backlash surprised many conservatives, given the Trump administration’s long-standing and vocal support for Second Amendment rights.
Facing growing criticism, Pirro addressed the controversy in a video posted Tuesday to X, emphasizing her support for gun ownership and constitutional rights.
She said she is a “proud supporter of the 2nd amendment” and a gun owner herself, noting that she previously keynoted a National Rifle Association convention. Pirro stressed that her comments were aimed at criminals, not law-abiding citizens.
“However, you need to be responsible. And every responsible gun owner that I know makes sure they understand the laws where they are going and understand whatever registration requirements there might be,” Pirro said. “President Trump’s goal here, and my goal as well, is to make sure we take guns out of the hands of criminals.”
She added, “There is a reason that we have the lowest homicide rate in reported history. We’re taking guns off the street — illegal guns — in the hands of criminals, who want to use those guns to victimize law-abiding citizens. There is a big difference here. If you are responsible, you follow the laws, you are not going to have a problem with me.”
Pirro’s clarification appeared aimed at reassuring conservatives that her tough-on-crime stance is focused on illegal firearms and repeat offenders—not Americans lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Tuesday morning, Pirro attempted to quell the outrage with a post on X.
Correction: NOT Republican Steube, it’s RINO Steube ! Big difference.
Ignore my previous post. I don’t believe Steube is a RINO.
Judge Janine is wrong on this 100%. There are no carve-outs in the 2A for high crime rates or anything else. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly that. It is an absolute, unambiguous command to the GOVERNMENT to NEVER do this! They couldn’t say “hell no, no way, never”, so they said “SHALL NOT!” and it’s ARMS that the ownership and carrying of shall not be messed with, not only Firearms. Pirro should know this, but apparently she believes that banning guns saves lives which is 100% false. This has been proven twice in real World testing, after the gun bans of 1997 in Australia and the UK. The Murder Rate shows no immediate or long-term reduction in Murder in both Countries. This of course has been hidden behind the false propaganda statistical category “Gun Deaths” as if a person is deader or super-dead if shot to death. There are many Murder Weapons that produce dead bodies just as good as ones that were shot!.
No Judge; the Founding Fathers wanted a different point of control: All ARMS are legal under the Constitution BUT! you will pay a massive and immediate annihilation should you break the law with them. If you are not stopped immediately by the people around you, the Law will deal with you. It works like the “you can’t shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre”. Well the Government cannot forbid you from saying anything, BUT! You are not free of the consequences of your words if there is no fire, your words cause panic and people are trampled to death. Misbehaving with any weapon is already illegal. You cannot stop the crime by banning a particular class of objects as Murderers will just use a different non-banned object to kill with.