In a move applauded by many Second Amendment supporters, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has taken down a controversial exhibit from its Washington, D.C. headquarters that critics say unfairly painted lawful gun ownership in a negative light.
The exhibit, titled Faces of Gun Violence, featured portraits of 120 individuals killed in incidents involving firearms — including suicides, accidents, domestic violence, and mass shootings. It also included a digital kiosk with biographies and was intended to expand annually with new honorees.
Attorney General Merrick Garland and former ATF Director Steve Dettelbach had both praised the display when it debuted in April 2024. But after less than a year, the memorial has been removed — a decision now stirring backlash from gun control advocates, including Brady: United Against Gun Violence and relatives of shooting victims.
But for many gun rights supporters, this removal is a step toward returning the ATF to its core mission: enforcing existing gun laws while respecting the rights of law-abiding Americans.
A DOJ spokesperson confirmed the decision, stating, “The ATF will continue to honor the memory of all victims of violent crime while at the same time preserving the rights of law-abiding Americans.”
Pro-gun advocates have long argued that displays like this — hosted inside a federal law enforcement agency — serve as political propaganda meant to push emotionally charged, one-sided narratives. By focusing solely on victims of gun violence, critics say the exhibit ignored a broader reality: that firearms are used defensively by Americans as many as 2 million times each year, according to some studies, often saving lives.
The timing of the removal has raised eyebrows among gun control activists who are accusing the Trump administration of censorship. Activist Kristin Song, whose son died due to an unsecured firearm, claimed, “Those faces once served as a call to action… But under this administration, those same images became a mirror the Trump administration couldn’t bear to face.”
But Second Amendment advocates counter that federal buildings funded by taxpayers — including millions of law-abiding gun owners — shouldn’t be used to promote political messaging that vilifies responsible firearm ownership.
“This isn’t about silencing victims — it’s about ending the use of taxpayer-funded spaces to push emotional narratives designed to chip away at constitutional rights,” said one gun policy analyst.
While gun control groups lament what they call a “political” decision, many gun owners are welcoming what they see as a shift away from emotionalism and toward policy rooted in facts, individual liberty, and constitutional responsibility.
Whether the display will reappear elsewhere remains unclear. The DOJ has declined to answer where the portraits have gone — but for now, supporters of the Second Amendment are seeing this as a symbolic moment of pushback against an agenda that often paints gun owners as the problem, rather than the vast majority of peaceful, responsible Americans who lawfully own and use firearms every day.
