Sixteen states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration regarding its recent decision to permit the sale of forced-reset triggers, which are devices designed to enable semiautomatic rifles to fire more rapidly. This legal action, announced on Monday, is aimed at blocking the return of such devices that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had previously seized from owners. The lawsuit was submitted in federal court located in Maryland.
The central argument of the suit claims that the administration's plans to return the triggers violate federal law and pose significant risks to both residents and law enforcement. The lawsuit underscores concerns that the proliferation of these devices could exacerbate gun violence in the involved states.
Legal disputes surrounding forced-reset triggers have been ongoing, particularly concerning their classification under federal law. The Biden administration has maintained that these devices function as illegal machine guns. Its stance is based on the fact that prolonged finger pressure on the trigger allows continuous firing, effectively transforming semiautomatic firearms into automatic weapons. This interpretation is significant, as it holds implications for regulation under federal law.
Rare Breed Triggers, the manufacturer of the contentious devices, has contended that the ATF's classification is erroneous. The company has accused the bureau of neglecting its requests to cease sales of the triggers prior to the Biden administration's legal action against them.
In a significant development, the Justice Department announced a settlement last month with Rare Breed Triggers. This agreement allows for the continued sale of forced-reset triggers, provided that they will not be applied to handguns. Additionally, it mandates that the ATF return any seized or voluntarily surrendered triggers to their original owners, addressing a key element of the ongoing dispute.
The lawsuit initiated by the states is led by the attorneys general of Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey. The coalition includes several other states: Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. These states are collaborating to challenge a measure that they believe endangers public safety and contradicts federal legislative intent regarding firearm regulations.
This case highlights the complexities of gun regulation in the United States, particularly in the context of differing interpretations of federal law by various administrations and stakeholders. As the legal battle unfolds, the implications for gun policy, public safety, and the balance of power between state and federal authorities continue to be of critical importance. The outcome may set significant precedents regarding the legal status of certain firearm modifications and the extent of governmental control in regulating weapons in the U.S.
