Legal Battle Over Rapid-Fire Devices Emerges
A significant legal confrontation has unfolded as sixteen Democratic-led states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. The states are seeking to block a policy that would return thousands of previously seized devices known as forced-reset triggers, which can convert semiautomatic rifles into weapons capable of firing at rates similar to machine guns. This move reverses a Biden-era ban on such devices, sparking intense debate over public safety and federal authority.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Baltimore on June 9, includes states like Maryland and Colorado, where attorneys general argue that redistributing these devices, even in jurisdictions where they are banned by state law, poses a severe risk to public safety. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had previously classified some of these devices as illegal machine guns under the National Firearms Act during the Biden administration, a determination now challenged by the current policy shift.
Policy Reversal Sparks Safety Concerns
The Trump administration's decision stems from a settlement on May 16 that resolved litigation over the ban on forced-reset triggers. Critics, including state attorneys general, contend that this reversal undermines federal law and endangers communities by allowing devices capable of rapid-fire capabilities to re-enter circulation. Approximately 12,000 of these confiscated triggers are at stake, with states arguing that their return could lead to increased incidents of deadly violence.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell emphasized the danger, stating, 'Force reset triggers allow even novice shooters achieve the firepower of a military machine gun. They have no place in everyday society.' Her statement reflects a broader concern among state leaders about the potential for these devices to exacerbate gun violence across the nation.
Implications for Federal and State Law
The lawsuit highlights a tension between federal policy and state autonomy, as many of the suing states have enacted their own bans on such conversion devices. Legal experts note that the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how federal settlements interact with state-level regulations on firearms and related accessories. The states assert that the Trump administration's plan is contrary to federal law, specifically citing violations of the National Firearms Act.
As this legal battle unfolds, public safety advocates and gun control groups have voiced strong opposition to the policy, aligning with the states' position. Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown underscored the urgency of the issue, declaring, 'We must keep these weapons off our streets and out of our communities.' The resolution of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for firearm regulation and the balance of power between federal directives and state laws in the United States.